House of Commons
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind colleagues that deferred Divisions will take place today on two statutory instruments in the Members’ Library between 11.30 am and 3.30 pm. Members will cast their votes by placing the completed Division slip in one of the ballot boxes provided. I remind colleagues of the importance of social distancing during the deferred Divisions and ask them to pick up a Division slip from the Vote Office and fill it in before they reach the Library if possible. The result will be announced in the Chamber at a convenient moment after the Divisions are over.
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)
We know that the average hourly wages are more than 30% higher in London than in Northern Ireland and regions such as the east midlands and the north-east. That is why we are working to level up Britain.
Dehenna Davison
We often see evidence that white working-class children have some of the worst educational outcomes—for example, in GCSE results and the numbers going on to higher education. Does my right hon. Friend agree that working-class children in communities such as Bishop Auckland who face poor outcomes deserve the full backing of the Government Equalities Office?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The attainment score at GCSE for white British children who receive free school meals is lower than the equivalent for black and Asian children who receive free school meals. That is why I have asked the Equality Hub to expand beyond protected characteristics and strengthen its focus on geography and social background to identify barriers to opportunity and success.
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
All the Government’s business support schemes are open to eligible businesses from all regions and backgrounds, including female entrepreneurs. The start-up loans programme has provided more than 30,000 loans worth over £239 million to female entrepreneurs as of June 2020. Additionally, we are working with the private sector to deliver the eight initiatives of the Rose review. Great progress has been made over the past year, with the joint NatWest and Be the Business female entrepreneurs mentoring programme to be launched soon.
Kate Griffiths
I thank the Minister for the detailed measures he set out. More women work in sectors and industries that are hardest hit by the covid-19 crisis. Can he outline, with a particular view to childcare, the help that we can offer women with successful businesses and careers to get them through the difficult months ahead?
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend for her concern, especially about childcare. We have already introduced 30 hours of free childcare for eligible working parents of three and four-year-olds. We have ensured that wraparound childcare remains open, to support parents to continue to work under all three covid levels. As set out in our manifesto, the Department for Education will be investing £1 billion from 2021 to help create more high-quality wraparound and holiday childcare places, including before and after school and during the school holidays.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies) [V]
This Government are determined to support older people during the pandemic, and my Department is working to support people of all ages to remain in and return to work. We have published guidance on working safely during the covid-19 pandemic and continue to work with national employer organisations on improving support for the over-50s. Our £30 billion plan for jobs provides back-to-work support for all ages, including doubling the number of work coaches, increasing sector-based work academy places and a new Department for Work and Pensions job finding support service.
Peter Grant [V]
In my Glenrothes and Central Fife constituency, over 2,000 pensioner households are losing out on £5.4 million in pension credit payments every year because they do not know that they are entitled to them. Fife Council launched an uptake campaign in the Glenrothes area, but it was curtailed because of the covid pandemic; I have to declare an interest, as I am married to the chair of the council’s Glenrothes area committee. The Scottish Government have published an uptake strategy for the benefits under their control. Will the Minister agree to urge her Cabinet colleagues to enshrine in law a duty for the UK Government to do the same for pension credits and other benefits that are controlled at Westminster?
Mims Davies
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that on 6 May, we launched the “Apply for Pension Credit” service, which is an online claim service that supplements the existing telephone and—[Inaudible.]
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I think somebody else might need to answer this question! It is estimated that there is more than £2 billion out there every year that is the legal right of older people on those islands. Pension credit does not make anybody wealthy, but it can make the difference between the loneliness and misery that poverty brings and the joy of simply being able to engage in life again. Will the Minister responsible for fighting for those older people agree to take this on as an equalities issue and put resources into ensuring that people have the knowledge and support—including support in using the online service she mentioned—to access what is, after all, a legal entitlement?
Mims Davies
Apologies. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
In supporting our older people, pension credit is an absolute priority for this Government, as I mentioned earlier. In fact, about 1 million pensioners—close to that number—who are pension credit customers will receive a winter windfall of £140 off their fuel bills, thanks to the Government working with energy firms to cut costs. This Government are determined to do all we can to support pensioners, and the DWP cross-match these pension credit customers with the data held by pension suppliers. I am sure that we will continue to support pensioners as widely as we can through this pandemic and ongoing.[Official Report, 2 November 2020, Vol. 683, c. 2MC.]
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
The Government have taken significant steps to protect jobs for women with the coronavirus job retention scheme supporting 4.5 million jobs done by women. We continue to support women in the labour market through our job support and bonus schemes. We have also committed to extending redundancy protections for new mothers returning to work and to make flexible working the default.
Ellie Reeves [V]
Working mums have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, with a recent report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies finding that they are more likely to quit or lose their jobs and typically perform a larger share of childcare and household duties than men. One of my constituents spent lockdown home schooling her two children as well as caring for her elderly shielding mother. Excluded from most of the financial support packages, she now faces winding up the company she set up. I have heard what the Minister had to say, but it does not go far enough. What additional urgent measures will he take to ensure that progress in female employment is not set back by decades?
Paul Scully
There are 1.8 million more women in work than in 2010, and it is important that we capture that. As I have said, on childcare responsibilities, which are so important, we have introduced 30 hours of free childcare, we have ensured that wraparound childcare remains available in each of the tiers and we will continue to invest to help create more high-quality, wraparound and holiday childcare places so that mothers are not disadvantaged.
Chris Elmore
The Women’s Budget Group last week highlighted that working-class women specifically face the biggest cuts to working hours since the beginning of the pandemic, with 43% reporting having had their hours cut to zero since April. Could the Minister set out what specific support he is putting in place to stop these women falling into poverty, because clearly it cannot be right that working-class women are so adversely affected by the pandemic?
Paul Scully
This is important, and we know that certain sectors are the worst affected. It is important that we actually do everything we can with “Hands, face, space” to make sure that our economy can start to open again and create opportunities, but we have also put in support with universal credit, the coronavirus job retention scheme, the self-employed income support scheme and the wider winter economy to help everybody, but especially the disadvantaged women that the hon. Gentleman describes.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Women make up a significant proportion of those employed in the fitness, leisure and wellbeing industry. Can my hon. Friend tell me what work he is doing with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to recognise that physical, mental and financial wellbeing go hand in hand? The sector is now having to manage variable lockdowns, and there will be a knock-on impact if businesses cannot recover financially and resume their role of contributing more than £2 billion annually to the nation’s economy.
Paul Scully
We know that physical activity is absolutely crucial to the wellbeing of our nation as well as to our economy. We have been working closely with the national sports council, Sport England, to continue promoting health and fitness during lockdown. This includes the Join the Movement campaign that it has launched, which provides tips, advice and guidance to tell people how they can keep or get active in and around the home. As I have said, it is so important that we keep as many gyms open as possible, where possible, but ultimately, this is about getting the economy up and running again. Lives are first in our priorities, but the economy and livelihoods must be absolutely up there.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
The Work Foundation has reported that 58% of workers in the retail sector are women and these are some of our lowest-paid workers, but due to most of them working on part-time or temporary contracts, hundreds of thousands of women working in retail will not even be eligible for redundancy pay. What plans does the Minister have in mind to mitigate the likelihood of disproportionate numbers of women being made redundant with no financial support available to them?
Paul Scully
As I say, it is so important that we get the economy up and running again, and we can do that only by people joining us and working with us on hands, face, space, to ensure that we reduce the transmission rate and save as many jobs as possible. We have launched a job support scheme, and that, plus universal credit, means that the lowest paid employees can have around 80% of their salary covered between those two schemes.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
As our Prime Minister often says, talent is equally distributed, but opportunity is not. This Government have made it our mission to rectify that, and equality of opportunity lies at the heart of the work by the Department for Education, including opportunity areas, access to higher education work and reforms to further education such as the flagship T-levels. We recognise that education has an unparalleled ability to create and unlock opportunities across the nation.
Mr Holden
In North West Durham, we see lower educational outcomes, especially among white working class pupils, who are getting disproportionately poor results. What measures are the Government taking to ensure better attainment at the ages of 16 and 18 and in later life, and not only to deliver greater opportunities for individuals, but to level up all our communities?
Michelle Donelan
It is vital that we raise school standards and outcomes across the education sector and that we raise and level up our country. That is why we established Opportunity North East, and tomorrow I will chair a board meeting to discuss that work. My hon. Friend is a tremendous advocate for his constituency, and I and other Education Ministers will continue to work with him to ensure that the young people of North West Durham get the chances and choices they deserve.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
The UK continues to be recognised as one of the most progressive countries globally for LGBT rights. The Government recently announced £3.2 million of new funding to help Commonwealth Governments and civil society to repeal outdated discriminatory laws against LGBT people. We work closely with the Council of Europe and the UN, in additional to co-chairing the Equal Rights Coalition, and we remain committed to delivering an ambitious international LGBT conference.
Crispin Blunt [V]
My hon. Friend will understand that the decision not to amend the Gender Recognition Act 2004 will inevitably see the United Kingdom fall significantly in the tables of those countries that are seen to be committed to the delivery of equality for LGBT+ people. Will she and her Department do something to address that, by committing to the delivery of an 18-week waiting time for gender identity clinics and development services for children, as an outcome of the review by Dr Hilary Cass?
Kemi Badenoch
We have noted my hon. Friend’s concerns about the Government’s decision, and we assure him that the UK has a strong record on LGBT rights. The wait for gender identity clinics has been very long, and the Government are looking at that issue. I will not make a specific commitment at the Dispatch Box, but I recognise the concern that has been raised. We will continue to do what we can to speed things up.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
In June, the Prime Minister asked me to lead cross-Government work on this issue, with a particular focus on ethnicity. I will update the House on the findings of my work in full tomorrow. The work involved extensive engagement by the Race Disparity Unit and me, with colleagues and external stakeholders, including academics and experts from University College London, the London School of Economics, Oxford University, medical experts from the British Medical Association and many ministerial colleagues. We will continue to redouble our efforts, and it is crucial that we make evidence-based decisions on this important work.
Shaun Bailey
One unfortunate impact of covid-19 has been the impact on attainment in our communities, particularly white working class communities where educational attainment gaps have struggled during this crisis. I represent Princes End, which has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the west midlands. Will my hon. Friend assure me that, as part of that work across government, she will look particularly at ensuring that opportunity gaps as a result of covid-19 are not widened?
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of children of all backgrounds being in school and their educational attainment and wellbeing more broadly. The Government have been clear that limiting attendance at schools should be a last resort. We are providing laptops for the most disadvantaged pupils and 4G routers for families who do not already have mobile or broadband, for example. More broadly, on disparities in attainment, the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities is looking at outcomes for the whole population. That means ethnic minorities and white British people as well. The commission will set out a new positive agenda for change and look at the issues that my hon. Friend has raised.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)
We are making good progress in getting more girls and women into science, technology, engineering and maths, with a 31% increase in girls studying STEM subjects since 2010 and 1 million women now working in core STEM occupations.
Katherine Fletcher
Professor Sarah Gilbert in vaccine research; Kate Bingham in vaccine operations; Baroness Harding in testing; Dr Jenny Harries in medicine—all fantastic examples of highly qualified professionals leading the UK’s response to this once-in-a-century pandemic, and they all happen to be women in STEM. Does my right hon. Friend agree that they are setting a wonderful example for future generations of girls and boys in South Ribble, Lancashire and beyond?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. They are a huge asset to our country, but having more women in STEM is also helping to close the wage gap and helping our economy to recover post covid. Around 35% of the wage gap can be overcome if we get more women working in high-paid occupations and sectors such as engineering and technology.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)
As much as £250 billion could be added to the UK economy if women started and scaled businesses at the same rate as men. I am determined that trade should play its part in opening up greater opportunities for women, both in the UK and across the world.
Mrs Wheeler
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Can she tell me what the UK will do to build on our close ties with Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam to expand trading opportunities, especially for women, particularly given Vietnam’s membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership?
Elizabeth Truss
First, we have appointed a splendid trade envoy for those three countries, who is going to do a brilliant job promoting opportunities for women and everyone through free trade agreements. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: CPTPP contains important provisions to open up trade for women, and of course Vietnam is a key part of that agreement.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
The Government are clear that it is unacceptable that women seeking or staff providing healthcare advice should feel intimidated or harassed. The Home Office has been keeping this important matter under review. We are now considering again whether more should be done to protect those accessing or providing abortion services, and we have reached out to service providers and the police to understand their experiences of these protests, but the impact on women is of course at the centre of our considerations.
Dr Huq
That is a very encouraging reply. Right now, up and down the country, women are being intimidated and police are having their time taken up by 40 Days for Life, an anti-choice group that is running a 40-day protest outside clinics. France, Australia and Canada have legislation on this. I am encouraged by what the Minister says. Will she please follow suit and take heed of the Demonstrations (Abortion Clinics) Bill, which I introduced in June? There is overwhelming support in the House for us to do the same here.
Victoria Atkins
I have the pleasure of meeting the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) later today to discuss this topic. The hon. Lady will know the meticulous approach that we have applied to this important issue. There is a balance to be struck with the right to express and to have freedom of speech, but clearly the impact on women and staff working in these centres is really important. I am pleased that public spaces protection orders are working in her area and two others—Manchester, I understand, has just received an order, or is implementing an order, as well. We very much have to balance those matters in mind, but I look forward to continuing this discussion in only a few hours’ time.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)
Alongside sex, race and sexual orientation, geography and social economic status can affect opportunity. I want to widen the focus of our understanding of equality to include outcomes for white working-class children, so we can ensure we are levelling up our country. I have therefore asked the Equality Hub to consider the importance of geography and background alongside factors such as sex, ethnicity and disability. That will make sure we truly level up Britain.
Mrs Drummond
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Equality and Human Rights Commission should be focused on its responsibility to enforce equality and human rights law?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am delighted that we have been able to put forward Baroness Kishwer Falkner as our preferred candidate to chair the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I know she is committed to making sure the commission’s focus is on enforcing our important equality laws.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab) [V]
The Equality Act 2010 sets out that the Government must seek to advance equality of opportunity in relation to its functions, yet throughout the pandemic Ministers have repeatedly failed to do so. It is vital that the Government take proactive steps to prevent the disproportionate impact of covid on disabled, black, Asian and minority ethnic people. Failure to do so is neglect. It is discriminatory, and it is unlawful. What evidence does the Minister have that her Government are fulfilling their public sector equality duty as set out in the Equality Act?
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
It is completely false to say that the Government have not acted and to deliberately ignore the significant measures we have put in place to reduce the spread of the virus in all communities across the United Kingdom, which we have repeatedly stated in this House. As I mentioned earlier, I will be making a full oral statement tomorrow, but it is known that we have taken many key measures to ensure that NHS frontline staff—in particular, those from ethnic minority backgrounds—are best protected and to ensure we fully understand the links between the virus and ethnicity.
Marsha De Cordova
Two and a half thousand deaths could have been avoided during the first wave of the pandemic had people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities been adequately protected. Last month, I wrote to the Minister asking what steps her Government had taken to address the disproportionate impact of covid, but I have yet to receive a reply and we are now in a second wave. The Minister says she will be giving a statement tomorrow, but I ask her as it is oral questions today. She still has not given an update on progress in implementing the recommendations of the Public Health England report. It has been over four months, so will she give us an update on the seven recommendations and when they will be fully implemented?
Kemi Badenoch
The shadow Minister has written many letters to me over the past four months, and I have replied to them. It is simply untrue to say that she has not received a reply. She knows the work we are doing is progressing the recommendations throughout government. The oral statement tomorrow will give ample time for me to fully address and explain all the work the Government have been doing and what the evidence has shown us. I encourage her to attend the oral statement tomorrow, because there is very much that she could learn on this topic.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Kemi Badenoch
We have been looking at the disproportionate impact the virus has had on very many groups. That is not a group where we have seen a disproportionate impact in terms of the effects of the virus. What has impacted that community is their inability, like the rest of the population, to access healthcare services. We hope that will be addressed through how we are managing local lockdowns and being able to keep pressure off the NHS.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Kemi Badenoch
The Government are taking a range of actions to ensure that everyone can access affordable period products. We are providing fully funded access to free period products in schools and colleges across England. The scheme remained in operation during partial school closures, and we expect uptake to have significantly increased as schools have fully opened. The scheme provides a wide range of products, including environmentally friendly tampons and pads, alongside reusable products such as menstrual cups and reusable pads.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I know the thoughts of the whole House will be with the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). I am sure Members from across the House will want to join me in wishing her a speedy recovery.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Catherine West
I associate myself with those kind remarks on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi).
My constituents are reeling from the 9% contraction of the economy since March this year. Unemployment has sky-rocketed and joblessness in Haringey is the highest in the capital. Unfortunately, we are at the same time facing the idea that there could be a congestion tax forced on an extra 4 million Londoners by this Government. These Londoners are already facing the double whammy of covid and financial ruin. Will the Prime Minister please immediately stop the imposition of this dreadful plan? I look forward to his answer.
The Prime Minister
I must respectfully inform the hon. Lady that the current Mayor of London had effectively bankrupted TfL before coronavirus had even hit and left a massive black hole in its finances. Any need to make up that deficit is entirely down to him. It is entirely his responsibility. Any expansion of the congestion charge or any other measure taken to improve the finances of TfL are entirely the responsibility of the bankrupt current Labour Mayor of London.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend by telling him that the incidence in the Vale of Aylesbury is in fact less than half the England average. The way forward for constituents in the Vale of Aylesbury and everywhere else is for everyone to keep following the guidance, observing the new restrictions and, obviously, washing hands, wearing a face covering in enclosed spaces and keeping a sensible distance.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi).
Prime Minister, how does an area which goes into tier 3 restrictions get out of those restrictions?
The Prime Minister
The simplest and most effective way for areas to get out of those restrictions is, of course, to get the R down to 1 or below, and I am very pleased to say that some areas are already having a considerable effect with the measures that they are taking.
Keir Starmer
Can I press the Prime Minister on that answer? If the infection rate, R, in a tier 3 area has not come below 1, will it be possible in any circumstances for that area to come out of tier 3—if the R has not come below 1?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, the R is one of the measures that we look at. We take a decision based on a number of things including the R—also, of course, rates of infection, rates of admission to hospital and other data. But the most important thing is for areas that do go into tier 3—and I am very grateful to local leadership in the areas that have gone into tier 3, because it is the right thing for them to do, the right thing for their constituents, the right thing to save lives —when they are able to make progress, then, of course, they will come out of tier 3. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well, the measures that are put in place are reviewed every 28 days.
Keir Starmer
I am now confused by the Prime Minister’s answer. If it is not the R rate under 1, what is it? Millions of people want to know the answer to that question. Millions of them are in tier 3 and millions more are likely to go into tier 3. They really need to know. On Friday, the chief scientific officer said that tier 3 on its own certainly is not enough to get the R rate below 1. On the same day, the Prime Minister himself said that there was only a chance of getting infection rates down.
That goes to the heart of the issue in Greater Manchester and elsewhere. The widespread fear is that tier 3 is the worst of all worlds: it brings significant economic harm without getting the virus sufficiently under control to exit tier 3. So instead of being a solution, tier 3 is a gateway to weeks and weeks, or more likely months and months, of agony from which there is no likely exit. Can the Prime Minister not see the problem if there is not a clear exit?
The Prime Minister
I am sorry, but I have made it absolutely clear that a part of the country going into tier 3 is in there only for 28 days; we will review it after 28 days. Areas that have gone into tier 3 are, I believe, already making progress, and areas where there are restrictions in place are also showing signs of progress. We are pursuing a local—a regional—approach, which is the sensible approach for this country. That is what the epidemiology supports. It is what the deputy chief medical officer supported last night.
Again, I want to thank local leadership in Merseyside, in Lancashire, actually in London, in the west midlands and elsewhere for what they are doing. It is a bit incoherent of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to attack local lockdowns when he wants to plunge the whole country back into a damaging lockdown for weeks on end, and he has no clue about how he would propose to get the country out of that—does he?
Keir Starmer
I appreciate that there will be a review every 28 days, but if the R rate has not come below 1, then the infection rate is still going up, the numbers are going up, the admissions are going up, the numbers in hospital are going up and the deaths are going up. Is the Prime Minister seriously saying that he would take a tier 3 area out of tier 3 with the R above 1? I do not think so.
Let me spell out what that means. On Friday, thousands of people in Greater Manchester—taxi drivers, pub and hospitality workers, people working in betting shops, the self-employed and freelancers—will either be out of work or face significant pay cuts. That is the reality on Friday in Greater Manchester. But their rent and their mortgage will not be lower; their food and their heating bills will not be lower—and that could last for months.
Why can the Prime Minister and the Chancellor not understand that? They should stop bargaining with people’s lives, stop dividing communities and provide the support that is needed in Manchester.
The Prime Minister
I am very proud that this Government have already given Greater Manchester £1.1 billion in support for business, £200 million in extra un-ring-fenced funding, £50 million to tackle infections in care homes, £20 million for Test and Trace, and another £22 million for the local response that we announced yesterday. Yesterday, the Mayor of Greater Manchester was offered a further £60 million, which he turned down, having had no encouragement to support it, I may say, from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
I can tell the House today that that cash will be distributed to the boroughs of Greater Manchester. I thank right hon. and hon. Members across the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), for Bolton West (Chris Green), for Bolton North East (Mark Logan), for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), for Bury North (James Daly), for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), for Leigh (James Grundy), for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) and for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) for the support that they have given in this matter.
Keir Starmer
This is a Prime Minister who can pay £7,000 a day for consultants on Track and Trace, which is not working; who can find £43 million for a garden bridge that was never built; but who cannot find £5 million for the people of Greater Manchester. I really think the Prime Minister has crossed a Rubicon here, not just in the miserly way that he has treated Greater Manchester, but in the grubby take-it-or-leave-it way that these local deals are being done. It is corrosive to public trust to pit region against region, mayor against mayor, council against council and ask them to trade away their businesses and jobs. We need a one nation approach to replace these endless local battles with clear national criteria and proper support for jobs. Labour’s motion this afternoon would do that. Why will the Prime Minister not support it?
The Prime Minister
I am proud of the one nation Conservative support that we have given to the entire country: £200 billion in support for jobs and livelihoods across the whole of the country already, and a further £9.9 billion now for the job support scheme. It is this Government who have cut VAT for business and deferred business rates. There is no other country in Europe where so much support and so much help has been given to the population to get through this crisis, and we will continue to do that. It is the height of absurdity that the right hon. and learned Gentleman stands up and attacks the economic consequences of the measures we are obliged to take across some parts of the country when he wants to turn the lights out with a full national lockdown, taking kids—[Interruption.] That was his policy last week anyway, wasn’t it? Perhaps he could confirm that that is still his policy. Is that what he wants to do?
Keir Starmer
At his press conference yesterday, the Prime Minister produced heat maps across the country showing that the infection rate was up in all ages and across all regions, and particularly showing regions that have been in the equivalent of tier 2 restrictions for weeks, if not months, moving into tier 3. If they are moving into tier 3, tier 2 has not worked, because if tier 2 had worked, they should be going into tier 1.
So tier 2 goes to tier 3, and tier 3 has no end, because there is no prospect or confidence in the R rate coming below 1—and I do not believe that a tier 3 region will come out of those restrictions unless R is below 1 and while the numbers are still going up. So we now have a stark choice.
By the way, Prime Minister, Cornwall is the only place—possibly with the Isle of Wight—where the infection rate today is less than it was in Greater Manchester when it went into local restrictions, so this idea that some areas are immune is wrong.
So there is a stark choice: carry on with the Prime Minister’s approach, which will lead to weeks and weeks and months and months of prolonged agony in everyone’s constituencies for millions of people in tiers 2 and 3, with no exit; or put in place a two to three week time- limited circuit break to break the cycle and bring the virus back under control.
Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland—in part—have chosen that path. With half term starting this Friday, this may be the last opportunity for the Prime Minister to put in place an effective circuit break. The Prime Minister was too slow in the first phase of the pandemic; he is being too slow again. We cannot repeat this mistake. Will he act in the public interest and take the opportunity to put in place a circuit break this Friday?
The Prime Minister
We will do whatever it takes to get this country through the crisis, with or without the support of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I have explained why I do not believe that his policy is the right one for the country, because it would involve closing schools and shuttering businesses, with all the psychological and emotional damage that a lockdown of that kind brings. He cannot say how many circuit breakers he thinks would be necessary. He cannot say how long they would go on. He cannot say how much damage they would do to the UK economy and to people’s mental health.
We, on the other hand, want to go on with our common-sensical approach, which is a local and regional approach, keeping kids in school and keeping our economy moving, because that is the way to get the whole of our country through this crisis together so that all the regions of the country, particularly those regions that are now, alas, under tier 3 restrictions, bounce back strongly together.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
This is a very exciting project, and I welcome Cheshire FA’s commitment to providing a new world-class facility for women’s and girls’ football. I look forward to the proposed opening of the centre in Winsford.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]
My thoughts are very much with the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). I hope she makes a speedy recovery.
Next week, just as the pandemic is worsening, the Tory Government will scrap the furlough scheme in a move that will cause a wave of mass redundancies across the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, behind closed doors the Prime Minister is complaining that he cannot get by on his £150,000 salary. If the Prime Minister is finding life such a struggle, how on earth does he expect many workers to get by on just £5.84 an hour when the Tory cuts to furlough sink in?
The Prime Minister
Actually, I am proud of what we have done to support people on low incomes throughout this period and, indeed, before. It was this Government who raised the living wage by record amounts, and we have just increased universal credit by around £1,000 a year. The right hon. Gentleman makes the point about furlough; as he knows, if universal credit is combined with the job support scheme that we have just announced, workers will be getting 80% of their existing salary. We will get this country through this crisis and we will continue to support people of low incomes throughout the period.
Ian Blackford
I am afraid the Prime Minister just does not get it. Yesterday, we saw his total disregard for the people of Greater Manchester—a Tory attitude that people in Scotland are all too familiar with. Millions of families are struggling to get by and this Tory Government want to cut their incomes in the middle of a pandemic. It is clear that the Prime Minister has made a deliberate decision to let unemployment soar, just like Thatcher did in the 1980s. Time is running out. With one week left, will the Prime Minister finally U-turn on his cuts to the furlough scheme and invest in our communities? Or will he leave millions of people on the scrap heap?
The Prime Minister
I really must reject what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, because it bears no relation to the facts or the reality of what the Government are doing to support people throughout the country. It is not just the £200 billion investment in jobs and livelihoods; we are also engaged in and will continue to deliver a colossal investment in education, health, housing and infrastructure that will deliver jobs and growth throughout this United Kingdom for a generation.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Whatever the effect of the withdrawal agreement, I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the UK’s internal market, which I think everybody on both sides of the House values, is protected and upheld and by the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which is currently going through the other place. It also, of course, protects the Good Friday agreement.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Mikey is severely disabled. He turned 18 last month, so he is one of the first to see his child trust fund mature, but Mikey’s disabilities mean that he cannot manage his own finances, so he cannot access the savings. Government rules on child trust funds mean that his parents cannot access them either without paying expensive legal fees. This is Mikey’s own money. He wants to use it to buy a specially adapted tricycle. Will the Prime Minister look at the proposals that Mikey’s father has shown me to end this injustice for disabled young people and let Mikey buy this trike?
The Prime Minister
Of course I will do whatever I can to help in the particular case that the right hon. Gentleman raises. I do not know whether the tricycle he mentions is eligible for a number of the schemes that I can immediately call to mind, but if he cares to write to me, I will of course answer immediately.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Prime Minister
What I can certainly confirm, as I said in my answer to the first question, is that the black hole in TfL’s finances of TfL, the bankruptcy of TfL, which, by the way, was left in robust financial health by the previous Mayor—it certainly was—is entirely the fault of the current Labour Mayor of London, with his grossly irresponsible demagogic fare policies, which, I may say, were never pursued by the previous Mayor of London, and the fault lies entirely with him. I trust that my hon. Friend will make that clear.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. Will the Prime Minister sit down? We must have short questions. I want to get through the list, so we must help each other.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is quite right to call attention to the difficulties facing many families right now because of the crisis that we have been in. The most important thing—and I hope that this is common ground—is to keep kids in school if we possibly can. That would be vitiated by the series of lockdowns that are being proposed. I do not want to go down that route. What I want to do is to ensure that we continue to support families throughout the crisis so that they have the cash available to feed their kids as they need to do.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am delighted that Kettering General Hospital is part of the biggest hospital building programme in a generation. I can tell my hon. Friend that the infrastructure delivery taskforce is already involved in delivering the health infrastructure programme, which includes Kettering General Hospital.
Mr Hollobone
I thank the Prime Minister for visiting the night shift at Kettering General Hospital in February and seeing for himself at first hand the wonderful work being done by local medics and staff. The hospital could expedite at speed ambitious plans for its rebuild, but only if the time taken for regulatory clearances at NHS Improvement is dramatically shortened. Will the Prime Minister cut NHS red tape, so that local people can have the improvements that we need at our local hospital as quickly as possible?
The Prime Minister
Indeed. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend by saying that clinical modelling work is complete and the site development is now under way as we speak.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Prime Minister
Governments of all stripes have supplied free school meals since 1906, and I am proud that it was this Conservative Government who extended universal free school meals to five, six and seven-year-olds. The Labour party was in power for 30 of the past 100 years and never did anything like that. We support kids of low incomes in school, and we will continue to do so, but the most important thing is to keep them in school and not to tear off into another national lockdown, taking them out of school. We will continue to use the benefits system and all the systems of income support to support young people and children throughout the holidays as well.
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for everything he does to lobby for that. Our local delivery partner in Devon and Somerset has provided connectivity of the kind that he describes to 300,000 premises across those two counties. We are going to be a world leader in connectivity as we build back better.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
It was the Labour Mayor of London who bankrupted TfL’s finances, and any changes that he brings in are entirely his responsibility. I suggest that the hon. Member holds him to account.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I know that the Prime Minister is committed to doubling down on levelling up. Will he join me for a virtual tour of Stoke-on-Trent Central and a roundtable with key partners focused on delivering for the left behind, not least to ensure that the transforming cities fund investment will revolutionise public transport in the city?
The Prime Minister
That is an easy commitment for me to make, and I am delighted to do so. I can tell my hon. Friend that we are investing nearly £20 million through our city deal in pioneering a new programme of sustainable low-carbon and low-cost heat energy to Stoke-on-Trent.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. I thank the people of Luton for their hard and heroic work, as I thank people across the country for what they are doing. I want to support businesses in Luton, which is why we want to continue with the sensible, balanced, regional and local approach that we are taking. I hope that the hon. Member agrees with me that it would make no sense at all for hard-pressed businesses in Luton to have their lights turned off and their doors shuttered in a series of multiple lockdowns of the kind recommended by the Labour party.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The people of Aberconwy in north Wales are learning to live with covid-19, but we are frustrated by national Welsh Government policy that seeks to place restrictions on us that are the same in the village of Cwm Penmachno as they are in the capital, Cardiff. Last week, my right hon. Friend agreed that a shared responsibility is the way to tackle this pandemic. Does he see the future of this situation as a series of rolling national lockdowns, or can businesses and residents hope that they will be given more trust to look after their own health and those they care for?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend puts the distinction clearly and sharply, which is that we are following the common-sensical and balanced approach. Where local leaders step up to the plate—I am delighted that South Yorkshire came on board this morning; I had a great conversation with Dan Jarvis last night—and where local leadership is shown, we can really make huge progress in getting the R down. That is the right approach for the country.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
Of course we have free school meals throughout term time—that is entirely right. We want to make sure that we continue to support people on low incomes throughout the crisis, and that is what we are going to do.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) [V]
As my right hon. Friend will know, part of my constituency has now been placed under tier 2 restrictions. Can he therefore reassure everyone that if they stick to the rules, observe the “hands, face, space” message, and self-isolate when required, accompanied by suitable enforcement for those who blatantly flout the law, we will come out of these restrictions all the sooner?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend puts his finger on it. That is exactly what we need to do. The areas that go into high levels of concern are reviewed every 14 days, and the restrictions, as I told the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), are reviewed every 28 days. The way to get through this is exactly as my hon. Friend says: to follow the guidance, particularly the “hands, face, space” basics.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I can confirm that Hammersmith bridge has been closed thanks entirely to the incompetence of the current Labour Mayor of London, and that Shaun Bailey, the Conservative candidate, is going to reopen it, which is the best thing possible.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) [V]
As my right hon. Friend leads the country through Brexit and delivers global Britain, will he ensure that the values and policies of his Government to which he first gives consideration are those that will unite and bring our country together, and make all those who voted remain for what they thought were the internationalist values of the European Union proud again of their country in bringing those values to global Britain?
The Prime Minister
Indeed. That is why we are going to use the G7 presidency and the COP26 summit to champion our values across the world, particularly the one that my hon. Friend mentions—female education, which is the single policy that can really transform outcomes across the planet. Our global objective is to help 40 million girls across the world to get a decent education.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Of course I sympathise deeply with businesses that face difficulties because of the pandemic, although I remind the hon. Lady that the infection rate in her constituency is now running at 815 per 100,000, and we must get that down. I thank the people of Nottingham for what they are doing to get it down. We will of course continue to provide the full panoply of support that we have offered, and more, throughout this crisis.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Following the introduction of tier 2 restrictions in York, can the Prime Minister be more open in communicating the evidence base for York going into tier 2, outline a road map for the city’s return to tier 1, and urgently consider the creation of specific support for York’s hospitality industry, which is suffering losses from the limbo that tier 2 is creating?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can tell my hon. Friend that the infection rate in York, alas, is now running at 279 per 100,000, and we must get it down. But we can get it down; we can get it down through the package of measures that we have described. You can see, in areas where people are complying with the guidance, that it is having an effect, because if it were not for the efforts and energies of the British people, the R would be running at 3 or more; it is now between 1.2 and 1.5. It will not take much—compliance in those areas that are hit at the moment—to get that R back down below 1. That is what we are aiming for, and that is the way to get businesses across the country, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), in my hon. Friend’s constituency, back on their feet as fast as possible. It would not be sensible, in my view, to plunge them all back into a sustained series of national lockdowns, particularly in areas where the virus is low.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The NHS track and trace is now testing more people than any other country in Europe; it has tested, I think, 26 million people so far—or conducted 26 million tests. I am also proud, on the hon. Lady’s other point, that we have been able to support people across the country in the way that we have. She is not correct in what she says about the combined impact of the job support scheme and universal credit, because they work in tandem, and that lifts people’s incomes to 80%, and in some cases more than 90%, of their current incomes. That is the support that we are giving at the moment, but the best thing is to get our country through this crisis, without going back into the social, the psychological, the emotional and the economic disaster—and “disaster” was the word that the Labour party used only a week or so ago—the disaster of a series of national lockdowns.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I suspend the House for three minutes.
Covid-19 Restrictions: South Yorkshire
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Exceptionally, I have agreed to the Minister for Health making a statement with a shorter notice period. Members should understand that it is better to have it than not to have it, so please accept my apologies for the late notice.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on coronavirus, further to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care last night.
This virus remains a serious threat, and over a million people have tested positive for coronavirus in Europe over the past week. Here in the UK, we recorded 21,331 positive cases yesterday—one of the highest recorded daily figures. Average daily hospital admissions in the UK have doubled in the past 14 days, and yesterday we recorded the highest number of daily deaths, 241, since early June.
We must keep working hard, together, to keep this virus under control. We have been vigilant in monitoring the data and putting in place targeted local measures so that we can bear down hard on the virus wherever we see it emerging. We have seen how local action can help flatten the curve, for example in Leicester and Bolton. This targeted local approach, supported by our local covid alert level system, means we can have different rules in places like Cornwall, where transmission is low, from those in places where transmission is high and rising.
I would like to update the House specifically on the discussions we have been having with local leaders in South Yorkshire. The situation in South Yorkshire remains serious. There have been more cases in South Yorkshire so far in October—over 12,000—than in July, August and September combined. The number of patients with covid-19 in intensive care beds has reached over half the number seen at the height of the pandemic earlier this year, and the latest data suggests that the numbers of patients on mechanical ventilation will soon be comparable to the first peak in March. We need to act now to prevent the epidemic in South Yorkshire from continuing to grow.
I am pleased to inform the House that, following discussions this week, the Government have reached an agreement with South Yorkshire on a package of measures to drive down transmission. That means that South Yorkshire—so the city of Sheffield, Barnsley, Rotherham and Doncaster—will be moving to the local covid alert level “very high”, taking effect at one minute past midnight on Saturday morning. That includes the baseline measures to the very high alert level which were agreed by the House earlier this month.
As well as this, and as agreed with local leaders, unfortunately, casinos, betting shops, adult gaming centres and soft play centres will also have to close, and while gyms will remain open classes will not be allowed. On that point, the Liverpool city region and my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) have also requested to bring their region into line with those measures. So gyms will be open and soft play centres will close in the Liverpool city region.
We know that some of the measures I have announced today are challenging and will have a real impact on people and businesses in South Yorkshire, so we will be putting in place substantial support. That includes the job support scheme, which ensures those affected by business closures are still paid. Once topped up with universal credit, those on low incomes will receive at least 80% of their normal income. The agreement also includes additional funding of £11.2 million for the local area for local enforcement and contract tracing activity. As well as that, we are putting in place extra funding so that local authorities in South Yorkshire can continue to support businesses through this period.
From the Dispatch Box, I would like to thank all the local leaders in South Yorkshire for the collegiate and constructive way in which they have approached the negotiations. I would like to thank all hon. Members representing constituencies in the region as well. We have worked across party lines to reach an agreement that will protect public health and the NHS in South Yorkshire, while also supporting those who need it most. I know those local measures will be hard and entail further sacrifice, but through bearing down hard on the virus, wherever and whenever we see it emerge, we can help to slow the spread of this virus and protect our loved ones and our local communities. The agreement will help us to protect lives and livelihoods in South Yorkshire and I commend the statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister of State for advance sight of his statement. Today, we have another great swathe of the north put into lockdown. Sheffield went into tier 2 restrictions last Wednesday, so did Ministers make the wrong judgment a week ago or has new evidence come to light that was not apparent last Wednesday? How many other areas in tier 2 today are facing the same fate as Sheffield, such as those areas in tier 2 that neighbour South Yorkshire, such as North East Derbyshire or Nottinghamshire?
The Secretary of State could not answer yesterday the question of how long Greater Manchester will be in lockdown, or what the criteria will be for leaving lockdown, so can the Minister of State today tell us how long South Yorkshire will be in lockdown? Does the nationwide R number need to fall below 1, as the Prime Minister suggested last week, or just the regional R number? Or, if an area such as Doncaster gets the R below 1, will it be able to leave lockdown?
The Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box earlier talked about hospital admissions, so could the Minister tell us what level hospital admissions need to come down to for an area to exit lockdown?
As I said yesterday, my dad worked in casinos in Salford and my mum worked in bars. I know people will want to do the right thing and will understand that further measures are necessary to contain the spread of the virus, but families should not face financial ruin. The Minister wants congratulations for the package he has allocated to South Yorkshire, but why is contact tracing funding subject to the negotiations and deals? The virus is out of control because of the failures of the £12 billion test and trace system. If local areas had been given the resources months ago to put in place effective contact tracing, we would not be in this situation now. Those failures on contact tracing are having a direct impact on people’s lives.
This afternoon, families across South Yorkshire who work in hospitality—whether in Doncaster, Sheffield, Penistone, Rother Valley or Don Valley—will be asking why, if it was fair to pay 80% of wages in March, they should now be expected to get by on just two thirds of their wages in the run-up to Christmas. This matters to families everywhere, because we know that further restrictions will be needed. Indeed, according to sources briefing Times Radio, plans are being developed for a three-week lockdown more widely next month. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that his officials are now working on plans for a three-week national lockdown next month.
The Communities Secretary said this morning that there was now a national formula for areas under local lockdown, but Ministers say they want a targeted local approach because circumstances vary. Yet when an area such as Greater Manchester, which has had restrictions since July, says, “Our circumstances are different,” the Prime Minister says, “Tough. Hard luck. You can’t be treated any differently,” and vindictively refuses Greater Manchester just £5 million extra to get a deal over the line. This is playing politics with people’s jobs and people’s livelihoods. We cannot defeat this virus on the cheap, nor should it be broken on the backs of the lowest paid. Public health restrictions must go hand in hand with economic support, because as night follows day, falls in employment lead to rises in chronic illness. The Chancellor must pay out to help out, and deliver a fair deal to support jobs and livelihoods under lockdown.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour up in Leicestershire. He was, as usual, typically reasonable and measured, until almost the last moment, when I am afraid the only person playing politics was him.
To address the hon. Gentleman’s points, we are taking these steps now, at the right time, as the infection rate has continued to go up. In respect of other tier 2 areas or neighbouring tier 2 areas, it is only this announcement that we are planning to make at this point. It is the only move that has been announced and that is currently being considered.
The hon. Gentleman asked about criteria, essentially— a number of his questions were, “How long for?” and, “How will it be judged?”, which are fair questions. Areas will remain in tier 3 or tier 2 for as long as necessary to protect the health of the local people and the NHS in that region. He asked about the sort of things that will be relevant to when an area enters and comes out. These include infection rates per 100,000, the impact on the NHS in terms of hospital capacity and how full hospitals are, and hospitalisation rates, as well as relying on local knowledge and listening to local public health officials, as he would expect us to.
The hon. Gentleman touched on contact tracing and how that is working. What we have in this country is a blended system, which brings together the scale of a national approach with the local knowledge provided by local public health teams. He has seen in his own city of Leicester how effective that can be and how both parts are absolutely vital.
The hon. Gentleman finished by talking, I think reasonably, about the need for economic support for those affected by this. As I set out in the statement, the job support scheme, coupled with universal credit for those eligible, will ensure that people receive at least 80% of their wages. On his broader point about the big picture of economic support, I would remind him that this Government and the Chancellor have provided an unprecedented package of economic support over recent months to businesses and individuals. The Government are very clear in our commitment to protect the health of this nation and the economic health of this nation.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for making this statement. I have had many productive meetings with him and his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care during the pandemic, and I know how hard such decisions are to make. While I understand the necessity for South Yorkshire to go into tier 3 to reduce the infection rate, businesses and employees are worried about the future. Can he confirm to the people of Doncaster that if they play their part, they will be able to move down to tier 2 independently of Sheffield city region?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is a consistently strong voice for his constituents in this House and in conversations with Ministers. I am clear, as are the Government, that no area should remain in a tier longer than is absolutely necessary to address the infection rate and protect the health of local people, so I can give him the reassurance that his area will stay in that tier no longer than is necessary to address the current rise in hospitalisations and infections.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I agree with him when he says that we must keep working hard together to keep this virus under control. However, I cannot help but notice that regional leaders in England have been expressing frustrations with Downing Street that are very similar to Scotland’s. Why is there an insistence on announcing measures to Westminster journalists before speaking to devolved and regional Governments? Does he not see that changing that approach could greatly improve working relationships?
Tens of millions of pounds of financial support are being announced this week. Will the Minister speak with his colleague the Chancellor and confirm that that money will be fully Barnettised, ensuring that the devolved Governments are being fully funded to take their own covid mitigation measures?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I should say that in my experience, albeit as a junior Minister, I have enjoyed a positive and constructive working relationship on this issue with the devolved Administrations and Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to that relationship and the work that those leaders in the devolved Administrations have done.
I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s final two points. In respect of his comments about briefings, all I would say is that I am here at the Dispatch Box announcing this to the House, and that is how I do business. On his final point, the Chancellor will, I know, have heard exactly what he said about Barnett consequentials.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
None of us in South Yorkshire wanted to be in this position and, as hon. Members have already said, this is going to hit families, businesses and communities hard at a time when we are already weary of months of not seeing family and friends. But it is important that we take swift action to protect the NHS and prevent local NHS services from becoming overwhelmed. I really do want to pay tribute to our Mayor Dan Jarvis, local leaders, No. 10 and the Department of Health, who have taken a really calm, constructive and collaborative approach over the past few days. That shows that we do not all hate each other in Yorkshire, despite the common perception.
I am also pleased that the restrictions are not open ended and that there is the 28-day review. I appreciate that the Minister cannot give exact metrics about what will be used to determine whether or not we come out of this, but it is very important to my constituents in Penistone and Stocksbridge that we know what we are aiming for. Can he guarantee that he will have regular, ongoing discussions with local leaders and local people about whether we are heading in the right direction, to make sure that people know that we are on the right track?
Edward Argar
I should have done this in responding to the shadow Secretary of State, actually: I also pay tribute to the Mayor of Sheffield City Region—a Member of this House—for his approach and to the constructive approach that we have seen on all sides in this. I put that on the record.
My hon. Friend talks about local engagement and what hope there is of reviews. The 28-day period is the sunset point at which these measures fall, unless they are renewed or altered. There are actually reviews within 14 days; the Secretary of State continues to monitor data so will be reviewing progress at more frequent intervals. I happily give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks: throughout this process there will be open lines of communication—not only with her and other colleagues, but with local leaders in the region.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
Although I am horrified that we are at this position, I completely understand the need for the introduction of these measures; I hope that everyone in South Yorkshire will follow them constructively. However, we need a level of support across the country to ensure that these local measures work. Although I am pleased that we have had constructive conversations throughout this period, I am still concerned that too many people will be left behind.
I have already heard from one employer about their employees falling through the cracks of the support scheme. They are unable to access funding for childcare on the basis of this as well. The lowest paid also use universal credit as an in-work benefit. Will the Minister agree, accept and make representations to the Treasury that perhaps 80% of an income topped up by universal credit is not enough in these scenarios?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the tone of her initial remarks—she is clearly putting the health interests of her constituents first—and her perfectly reasonable question. As I set out in my statement, the job support scheme, coupled with universal credit, will give those on low incomes at least 80% of their normal income, but if there is a specific sector or case that she wants to raise, I would be delighted for her to write to me, and I will look into it.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
None of us in South Yorkshire wanted to be in the higher tiers, but we completely understand the need to save lives and protect the NHS; that is the overarching thing that we need to take away and encourage all our population to do. However, this increased tier will have an increased impact on people’s mental health. I have already been contacted today by constituents who are seriously worried about their mental health, especially when they do not have anyone to form a support bubble with. What assurances can the Minister give to me and people across Rother Valley that mental health is a key part of the system and will be looked after and helped?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have known him for many years, and he has long taken an interest in and campaigned on this issue. I can reassure him that additional investment has gone into the NHS at all levels, which includes mental health, but he is right: the impact of lockdown and these restrictions on people’s mental health should never be underestimated, so it is right that support and advice are available to people. I know that his local NHS is working very hard to ensure that that package is in place. If he wishes to talk to me subsequently, I am happy to do that.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Clearly we have to take the measures necessary to combat the virus, and we have tried to work together on them across South Yorkshire, but the Minister knows that this deal does not meet all the concerns of local leaders, nor does it provide the support that businesses need. The ban on household mixing is clearly necessary, but it makes many cafés, restaurants and pubs with food unviable. It impacts on the music, events and creative sectors, but because they are not being required to close, they will not get the support they need. They are simply being hung out to dry. Will the Government think again and provide the support that those businesses need, to save thousands of jobs across South Yorkshire?
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman is always diligent and measured in representing his constituents and businesses in the House. The deal that has been reached is both fair and proportionate and reflective of the fairness across other areas that are in tier 3, and it should be taken in the context of being coupled with the broader national programme. I would not characterise the approach being taken towards hospitality in the way that he did. I pay tribute to our hospitality industry in this country, which I think is what he was seeking to do, and as I say, the support package is there to support businesses across all sectors in this country.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Test and trace activity is rightly focused on areas of the country where there is relatively high transmission of the virus. To what extent will the Minister prioritise tier 3 areas over tier 1 areas in the protocols that the Department is drawing up for vaccination?
Edward Argar
The protocols for the distribution of any vaccine, when it becomes available, are being worked on intensively. My right hon. Friend makes a good point, which I am sure will have been heard by the Secretary of State.
Mr Speaker
Let’s head up to South Yorkshire, to visit the Mayor, no less—Dan Jarvis.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
As Mayor, I think that this is the right course of action for South Yorkshire. The financial support will provide some help for our people and our economy, but we all understand that it will also mean sacrifice. Families will be separated, workers will suffer, and businesses will face uncertainty, so we need the Minister and the Government to repay that sacrifice by working closely with us, with our local authorities and with our NHS. Together, we need to do everything we can to get a grip of this disease, so that our region can move out of these restrictions as soon as possible.
Edward Argar
I reiterate the tribute I paid to the hon. Gentleman for his approach throughout this. It is abundantly clear that he and all of his colleagues have the best interests of his region at heart and have worked constructively throughout this process to get the right health and economic outcome for his area. I can absolutely give him that commitment. I and my colleagues look forward to continued close working and co-operation with him as we move forward to beat this disease in his area.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
The three-tiered local approach has to be right, and I pay tribute, as the Minister just did, to the cool heads of some local leaders for working with Ministers so sensibly. Surely people in South Yorkshire and elsewhere need to know where they are at and be confident that the goalposts will not move, so can the Minister please comment on stories this morning that plans are being worked up by the chief medical officer for local—not national, but local—three-week circuit breaker lockdowns in tier 2 and tier 3 areas?
Edward Argar
I can reassure my hon. Friend that that is not something I have been involved in or had sight of.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Public trust in the midst of a public health emergency is absolutely critical. People need to know what they are working towards when they are making these immense sacrifices, so may I press the Minister once again on the criteria that he has agreed with the Mayor of Sheffield city region for South Yorkshire going into tier 3 and to come out? Will those same criteria be applied to other tier 2 areas such as London, York, Essex and parts of the midlands, or will they all be subject to a series of negotiations at local level behind closed doors? The public need and want to know.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is her party’s spokesperson on this issue. I entirely understand where she is coming from and the importance of trust and transparency. I set out in the statement why the move has been made to increase the tier level—the infection rates and the hospitalisation rates—and why that development needed to be arrested by these measures. I set out in response to the shadow Secretary of State the considerations that would play a part in determining the review periods when an area could start to move back down those tiers. Those things include infection rates, the impact on the NHS and hospital capacity in the area and other local factors. It is reasonable that we set out that broad approach, but also that we recognise that in some areas very specific local considerations will be driving growth of the disease and infection rates, and they may need to be taken into consideration as well.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
If someone lives in Gainsborough and they want to take a test, they can go to the Lincolnshire showground, but equally they might go to Doncaster airport, if their work takes them up there and it is not much further. There is a mystery about infection rates in West Lindsey, because they are higher than all the surrounding areas, despite the fact that we have no university, we are a rural area and we have no large hospital. I suspect the figures are being corrupted because the large local testing site is at the Lincolnshire showground. Cases are probably coming in from outside and featuring in West Lindsey figures. That is important, not just for South Yorkshire but for everywhere else, because if those figures are wrong, how can we rely on them? How can we lock down areas and put businesses out of business if the figures simply do not add up?
Edward Argar
I am not aware of any systemic issue that is seeing false data entered, but if my right hon. Friend is happy to give me more information, I am happy to look into it for him. There can, though, be other factors beyond universities or a young population. There can be a range of things in a particular area that drive a particular spike, but I am happy to look at the information he has got.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I completely understand the reasons for this statement. Government action for Yorkshire is similar to the action we have taken in Northern Ireland with the circuit breaker. Simon Hamilton, chair of the Belfast chamber of trade and commerce, has stated, in tandem with 23 other organisations that “fewer and fewer” will survive each lockdown and
“more jobs will be lost”.
The Department for the Economy accurately estimates that those job losses could be 100,000. With the prospect of longer dole queues and poor prospects for re-employment, what discussions have taken place and what assistance can the Minister give to the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland?
Mr Speaker
The statement is about South Yorkshire. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have had a little bit of something about Yorkshire. Minister, see what you can pick out of that about Yorkshire.
Edward Argar
I am pleased to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the same collegiate approach we have adopted for working with South Yorkshire characterises our approach across all of the devolved Administrations and devolved nations as well. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that we missed him while he was away self-isolating for a period, so it is good to have him back? He touches on the economic impact, and he is absolutely right to highlight that. There is a clear support package in place, and I continue to work closely with Robin Swann and others in Northern Ireland on these matters.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Last week, local politicians in Lancashire were able to put their politics aside and work constructively to agree a sensible way forward. I am delighted that politicians in South Yorkshire have now been able to replicate the same constructive cross-party approach. Will my hon. Friend commend those local politicians, including the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), for the way in which those negotiations have been conducted, which has of course been in stark contrast to the behaviour of some other elected Mayors?
Edward Argar
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to all local leaders and, indeed, all Members of this House who have been engaged in this process and more broadly. It is clear that when we all work together, we can achieve more to tackle this disease.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
On Monday, I asked the Health Secretary about contact tracing. He answered by talking about testing, so perhaps this Minister will answer a question about contact tracing. Will the Government now give the Serco data to local public health teams, and will the Government provide the financial resources that those local teams need? That equates to roughly £300 million to the Liverpool city region, similar sums to Lancashire and to South Yorkshire, and about £500 million to Greater Manchester when compared with the £12 billion for Serco.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The data he refers to is, of course, Government data—NHS data. He talks about contact tracing, and as I said in response to his hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, the approach we adopt on both testing but particularly on contact tracing quite rightly blends the scalability of a national approach with the local knowledge of working very closely hand in hand with local public health teams. A very good example of how that can work well is in my own local city and the shadow Secretary of State’s city of Leicester.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
These really are tough choices, as nobody wants to see their lives restricted or their freedoms curtailed. All of my constituents in Keighley and Ilkley have had local restrictions since the end of July, and for now at least we are in tier 2. While many are adhering incredibly diligently to these restrictions, it is clear that a sense of disenfranchisement is kicking in, with some not adhering. How can we better address this so that we give ourselves the best chance of staying in tier 2 and not going up to tier 3 like our neighbouring friends in South Yorkshire?
Edward Argar
It is very important that everyone continues to adhere to the rules put in place for the tier in which their area sits. Those rules are in place to protect public health and bring the infection rate down. I would, finally, comment—I think it was the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who mentioned trust—that of course it is very important for building trust and consent that we work closely with local leaders and with local Members of Parliament, and I come to this House, as I have done today, to obtain that consent and provide that transparency so that people are more likely to comply.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I note the agreement reached in South Yorkshire, and I fear that York is rapidly heading in the same direction, with a sharp increase in infection. Does the Minister recognise that each local authority has different economies, different complexities and different vulnerabilities, and therefore it is really important to start dialogue early with local political leaders as well as ourselves to get the right deal to prevent an escalation in tiers, but also to ensure that we get on top of the Track and Trace system to make sure that that is done locally and is effective?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I think she actually made the case very well for the approach that the Government are adopting, which is local tiering, rather than a blanket national approach, because she is absolutely right that different areas of the country are different and have different circumstances. To her substantive point about early engagement and continued engagement, I am very happy to say that I am very happy to work with her. We can start that off, if she wants, with a conversation about the data and so on. I am very happy to ensure that those channels of communication are open.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Enforcement is important in South Yorkshire, as it is elsewhere, and I am pleased that on today’s Order Paper there is a statutory instrument putting the requirement to self-isolate in law. However, the Minister will be aware that I have grave concerns about the powers to use reasonable force that have been given to state officials other than police officers who simply are not trained to use those powers safely. As a former Home Office Minister, I think that risks the safety and lives of individuals. May I ask the Minister to give me an assurance from the Dispatch Box that, at the earliest opportunity, those powers will be limited only to police officers? I regret to say that if he cannot give me that assurance, I will be unable to support the measures on today’s Order Paper.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question, and I am conscious of the context in which he speaks. As a former junior Minister handling prisons at the Ministry of Justice, I am conscious of the issues that he alludes to in that context and of the importance of proper training and restraint and similar. We appreciate concerns about the reasonable force allowances in the regulations. The powers to authorise persons other than the police and police community support officers to use reasonable force have not been used, and there are no intentions to use them. However, my right hon. Friend makes his point well, as always, and we are urgently reviewing those powers, given the concerns that he and others have raised around the proportionality of enforcement.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
This morning, Professor Edmunds told the Health and Social Care Committee and the Select Committee on Science and Technology that he would not follow the strategy of imposing tier 3 lockdowns on a succession of local areas. He said that would keep the R number around 1, meaning that the high rate of incidence we already have in those areas, with hospitals under strain, would just continue. Instead, a short circuit breaker, with tier 3 restrictions everywhere now, is what we were told would bring case rates down. If that is the advice being given to the Government, why are they pursuing damaging restrictions on areas such as South Yorkshire and Greater Manchester, with inadequate financial support, that are unlikely to bring cases down?
Edward Argar
I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me; I did not see the evidence to the Select Committees, as I was preparing to come to the House. However, as she will be aware, the SAGE paper that was published recently, in referring to so-called local circuit-breaker lockdowns, did not say it was a one-off and would solve the problem. We are confident that we are taking a proportionate and effective approach on a regional and local basis that will, assuming that compliance is there, continue to drive down infection rates effectively, coupled with an effective economic and financial support package agreed with local leaders.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Although my thoughts are with the people of South Yorkshire and businesses in South Yorkshire, my primary responsibility is to people in North Yorkshire. Will my hon. Friend help to scotch any rumours that are circulating that North Yorkshire is about to go into tier 2 when its rate of infection is well below the national average? If there is any need to put us in a higher tier, will he look to do that on a district-wide level, where there is significant variation across North Yorkshire, rather than purely at county-wide level?
Edward Argar
If I recall correctly, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to offer my hon. Friend a reassurance relatively recently in the House in respect of the approach that he was looking to take in that context, and that still stands.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
The Minister has, no doubt, given briefings to South Yorkshire colleagues, as he did with Greater Manchester MPs earlier this week, and I sincerely thank him for that engagement. It is being widely reported that the Communities Secretary is meeting Greater Manchester’s MPs about the next steps for our city region. Sadly, it seems that none of the 18 Labour MPs has received an invite. Is that an accidental oversight or further evidence of increasing ambivalence towards our city region?
Edward Argar
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is no ambivalence towards his city region. There is a deep respect and affection across this House for that region and the people who live there. I am grateful to him for his kind words about the briefing I led with colleagues across all parties relatively recently on this. I am happy to look into the specific question he raises about being briefed by the Local Government Secretary.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
I pay tribute to the Mayor of South Yorkshire, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). He has worked constructively with the Government to ensure proper northern leadership in the interests of public health. Will the Minister confirm that when other areas face changes to local restrictions, his Department will continue to work with local leaders and Members of Parliament? Will he also confirm that there are no plans to move the Tees Valley, and specifically Redcar and Cleveland where cases have recently dropped, into tier 3?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is right to talk about the importance of local leadership and engagement. Local leaders and Members of Parliament know their areas best, and it is right to continue to engage closely with those people. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work that has recently been done in that respect. On his final point, I am not aware of any such proposition.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
People in South Yorkshire, as well as in my constituency, struggle to make ends meet on the UK Government’s pretendy living wage, which falls far below the real living wage. How does the Minister expect people to live and pay their bills and rent on only two-thirds of that poverty pay?
Edward Argar
As the hon. Lady will have heard me say, the combined support schemes, particularly where there is the UC top-up, will mean that people get at least 80% of their wages. I am afraid that I refute her point about the living wage in this country, as I believe it is a significant achievement by this Government and the previous Chancellor, George Osborne. It is a huge step forward, and rather than belittling it, we should recognise the impact it has had.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
South Yorkshire is where many, perhaps most, visitors to Cleethorpes come from. They are very welcome and vital to the local hospitality sector, but many of them occupy caravans and chalets for weeks and months at a time. Again, that is welcome, but there are concerns among local people that people perhaps come and go during this period to and from an area in tier 3. What support can the Government offer to the local authority to monitor that?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend highlights an important point, and we have been clear that people in tier 3 areas should not undertake travel in and out of that area. They should abide by the rules of the area in which they live, rather than travelling to another area and applying the rules in that area. The rules apply on the basis of the area in which someone lives.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
One big concern about the local lockdowns in South Yorkshire and elsewhere is that if there is not enough money to support businesses to survive, there will be a longer-term impact on the economy and individual livelihoods if that is not put right. That will have a big impact on public health, and one of the biggest concerns is the loneliness of people living in single households, and the impact on their mental health. How is the Minister looking ahead—I hope that he will answer this point directly—to ensure that there is no long-term oncost to the health service from this misery for people who are left alone and are now unable to mix with households in South Yorkshire and other areas with hard lockdowns?
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady makes an important point about loneliness and its impact on mental health. She will know that support bubbles still exist, but she alludes to a broader point about long-term mental health support. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), we have invested heavily in the NHS, which includes funding for mental health support services. The hon. Lady is right: this is not just about funding during this pandemic; this is about being aware of people’s long-term needs and the impact on them. I am happy to commit to considering that issue carefully in the months and years ahead.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
These tough measures will have a huge impact on the lives of local people. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the Government will do everything they can to provide an extensive package of support to local people, businesses and councils and that his Department will continue to do everything it can to avoid the need for such a lockdown in Stockton South?
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The hospitality and tourism industry in Cumbria is comfortably our biggest employer. It was very much looking forward to half-term next week, as a chance for businesses to pick up after the enormous damage they have sustained as a result of the virus. However, we are seeing cancellation after cancellation, because neighbouring economies in Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and now, of course, other parts of the north England have been put into tier 3 and people are therefore not able to travel. Rather than quibbling over £5 million, people in Cumbria are getting nothing—no compensation for their businesses collapsing. Will the Minister commit to making sure there is support of the hospitality and tourism industry in tier 1 places such as Cumbria, where our market has dried up because our neighbours are in tier 3?
Mr Speaker
This is about Yorkshire, so if we could mention Yorkshire it would help.
Edward Argar
I am sure the point the hon. Gentleman raises will be pertinent to areas in tier 1 nearby to South Yorkshire, too. He makes his point typically well. I recognise the impact on the hospitality industry and on other businesses, not just in the directly affected area but more broadly. As I say, he makes his point well, and I am sure the Chancellor will have heard what he says.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
None of us wants to see restrictions like those announced for Yorkshire today, but we all recognise the need to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed. However, I am increasingly concerned about the long-term health impact the pandemic is having on things like mental health and long-term serious health conditions. A good example is the recent commissioning decision by NHS England to withdraw breast cancer screening units from places such as New Mills, Buxton and Chapel-en-le-Frith, citing covid as the reason for the withdrawal. Will the Minister agree to meet me, so we can discuss how to reinstate breast cancer screening units to High Peak?
Edward Argar
I, or a fellow Minister from the Department, will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Local and regional authority leaders from South Yorkshire and right the way across the country will have heard the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister repeatedly say in the past 24 hours that they cannot exceed the items offered to Merseyside in their negotiations elsewhere. Will the Minister at least be honest and say that this is not a negotiation? It is a take-it-or-leave-it deal that other authorities can take. Those who lead authorities have to ask themselves the question: what is the point of negotiating?
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman knows I have huge respect for him—indeed, a huge fondness for him —but I am afraid I cannot agree with what he says. We have been working very closely in a collegiate way with local authorities. It is absolutely right that, alongside that negotiation or discussion on the package and support they need, we recognise that we have to be fair and proportionate across other regions that are in the same tier. We have to ensure that the approach we are adopting, which we are, is both fair and proportionate.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
North East Derbyshire sits on the outskirts of South Yorkshire and many towns and villages, such as Dronfield, Eckington, Killamarsh and Ridgeway, look towards Sheffield for work and education. For the benefit of those residents, will the Minister confirm that there has been no change to the tier level in North East Derbyshire, that the rules remain the same unless those residents are travelling to Sheffield and that North East Derbyshire will continue to be dealt with on an independent basis, while working closely with Sheffield when we review our tier status in future?
Edward Argar
As my hon. Friend knows, I know Dronfield having spent a very happy day there with him in the course of his successful election campaign. I can reassure him that the situation, as I stand here, remains exactly as he sets out.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Vehicle Registration Offences (Penalty Points)
Wednesday 21st October 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Vehicle Registration Offences (Penalty Points) Bill 2019-21 View all Vehicle Registration Offences (Penalty Points) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make vehicle registration offences under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 attract driving record penalty points; and for connected purposes.
The Bill I present today aims to save lives and to relieve the stress on residents living near roads by improving the ability of the police to identify, and therefore prosecute, antisocial or reckless road users. I should like to be clear that the Bill is not in any way about targeting motorcyclists or, indeed, motorists in general. There are more than 1.25 million motorcyclists in the UK. It is a great sport and industry. I am proud that Destination Triumph has a fantastic dealership for that British-owned brand in Washington in my constituency.
The vast majority of motorcyclists use the roads responsibly and West Sussex welcomes careful riders and drivers alike. I arrived at the subject of the Bill, however, as a result of the misery inflicted on my constituents every summer, but which reached a new intensity during lockdown—misery because, on a day when the roads are dry, the residents of small towns and villages are woken by the sound of motorcycles and there is no respite until sunset. In places around Wisborough Green, Petworth, Bury Hill, Coldwaltham and Tillington, my constituents have to keep their windows closed, however warm the day. Pedestrians feel intimidated and this issue causes a great deal of mental stress.
This is not just about noise. My constituents travel on statistically the most dangerous roads in the whole of Sussex. In fact, the Chichester Observer reported last month that the Road Safety Federation identified the A285 between Petworth and Chichester as one of the worst in the whole UK, with 29 serious and fatal crashes between 2013 and 2018. Nearly two thirds of those involved motorcyclists. Similarly dangerous roads include the A272 from Tillington to Cowfold, the A283 between Fittleworth and Steyning and the A29 from Bury Hill to Adversane. These all carry a particularly dangerous mix of vehicle types, even before the addition of a speeding motorcycle or sports car. Even the shortest journey is likely to include an encounter with tractors and combines, a peloton of bicycles or the local bus service. Things will improve when the long-awaited A27 Arundel bypass is built and takes heavy goods vehicles away from the most dangerous A roads that I have mentioned, but the upgrade was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport only last week and will therefore take many years to arrive.
This issue is not confined to Arundel and South Downs. Members of this House who are supporting today’s Bill have told me of their concerns about the same issue on the A32 and the A272 in the Meon Valley, on the A27 at Sherfield English in Hampshire and in the Kingsnorth area of Ashford in Kent. Nationally, five people are killed and a further 68 receive life-changing injuries every day on our roads. That is one terrible family tragedy every 20 minutes. It falls to the police to do their best to address the twin impacts of antisocial noise and road safety, and I am grateful for all the efforts of my local police commissioner, Katy Bourne, and Chief Constable Jo Shiner.
This summer has seen a real effort by Sussex police under Operation Downsway, which I saw at first hand out on patrol with Chief Inspector Jon Carter and Police Constable Van Der Wee. However, despite an increase in police numbers—380 new officers this year in Sussex and more than 4,000 nationwide—the police simply cannot be everywhere all the time. Cameras play a vital role in extending their eyes, and that is where today’s Bill will help by closing a loophole in the law.
Currently, although speeding offences are endorseable—that is, they result in points on the offender’s driving licence—the offence of displaying a non-compliant number plate, or even of displaying no number plate at all, carries only a fine. That enables antisocial drivers on our roads, especially in rural areas, to defy both speed and number plate recognition cameras with relative impunity. That is particularly true for owners of high-performance bikes costing tens of thousands of pounds, where a £100 fine for infringing the law on public roads is far less than the cost of admission to a private and regulated track day.
While I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members have no first-hand familiarity with the matter, when it comes to driving, points definitely do not mean prizes. More points mean substantially higher insurance premiums, and multiple offences quickly make the loss of a licence a real consideration. Unlike a fine, penalty points are a real sanction and are more likely to change behaviour. Indeed, I believe that the Home Office Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s working group has made a similar plea for more robust penalties in this area.
Let me conclude by asking the Government and hon. Members from across the House to join me in supporting this Bill today. No novelty or innovation is required. It marries an existing offence with an existing sanction that is a tried and tested part of the motoring statute book. It is a measure that has support from the police and residents alike. It is clear and simple and does exactly what it says on the tin. I am therefore pleased to commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Andrew Griffith, Mr Andrew Mitchell, Bob Blackman, Caroline Nokes, Damian Green, Damian Hinds, Mrs Flick Drummond, Henry Smith, James Sunderland, Sir Mike Penning, Sir Peter Bottomley, and Tim Loughton present the Bill.
Andrew Griffith accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be presented (Bill 201)
Opposition Day
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Additional Covid-19 Restrictions: Fair Economic Support
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 261 / Noes: 340 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I should inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the manuscript amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. He has done this because the motion was tabled only shortly before the moment of interruption yesterday, and because one of his predecessors selected a manuscript amendment to an Opposition day motion in comparable circumstances on Monday 3 December 2001, thus creating a precedent.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to publish clear and fair national criteria for financial support for jobs and businesses in areas facing additional restrictions, to be voted on in Parliament; and calls on the Government to make good on its claim that workers faced with hardship who are subject to the Job Support Scheme extension will receive at least 80 percent of their previous incomes.
I start by placing on record my thanks to the staff at Stepping Hill Hospital in Stockport who recently cared for my aunt, who died of coronavirus last week. I speak today not just as a Member of this House, or just as a Mancunian, but as someone like the many others across our city and our country who have in the past few weeks lost loved ones to this terrible virus. That, more than anything, is why I come here wanting the Government not to fail but to succeed, because lives literally depend on it.
We know that a public health response will save lives only if it is supported by a fair economic settlement. The British people want to do the right thing, and they will do the right thing, but we need to support them in doing so. That is why I was so appalled by what I witnessed yesterday. I was with fellow Greater Manchester MPs on a Zoom call with the Health Secretary, who was handing us scraps from the Prime Minister, while our elected Mayor found out from Twitter. The Government then tried to blame it all on our Mayor for not doing what he was ordered to do from Whitehall. I have heard of power without accountability, but apparently the Government’s idea of devolution is accountability without the power.
We were offered £8 per head—or, to put it another way, 30 seconds of work for a consultant working on the collapsed test and trace system. Let me say this: £8 per person is an insult. And now the Government are attempting to play us off against each other across GM. Well, let me tell the Prime Minister: our Mayor stood up for Greater Manchester, but he spoke for Great Britain. Indeed, his call for Parliament to have a say and a vote on these measures is one that so many Government Members have made.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
On the point about votes in Parliament, many of us called for votes in this place on national restrictions a couple of weeks ago but, unfortunately, near enough all Opposition Members did not bother to turn up for those votes, including the one on the rule of six. If the Opposition get their way and have votes on localised restrictions, will they even turn up?
Angela Rayner
As the hon. Member has turned up today, I hope he will do the right thing and support people with an economic package so that they can do the right thing and we can save people’s lives across Greater Manchester and the whole of this country. I hope he will do the right thing and support us in the Lobby tonight.
The Government have not given us the chance to have our say, so today we are giving the House the chance to do so. Our motion calls for the Government to bring forward fair national criteria for financial support in areas facing additional restrictions, and it provides for Members to have a vote on the criteria.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on making some excellent points in her speech. Given that the Government’s strategy to deal with the pandemic is not working, does she agree that, rather than using divisive tactics and treating the regions of our nation with utter contempt, the Prime Minister needs to adopt a united, one nation approach? Does she also agree that, if we want to impose stricter measures, we need to provide support to individuals and businesses, and that we cannot have lockdown on the cheap?
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Over the past 24 hours, the people of Greater Manchester, regardless of their political persuasions or colours, have been absolutely dismayed by the way in which our democratically elected Mayor has been treated, but this is about the treatment not just of our Mayor but of the people of Greater Manchester. This is not some spiteful little game; this is about people’s lives, people’s loved ones and people’s jobs. They have spent years building up our economy in Greater Manchester. This Government choosing the path that they have chosen has done one thing for Greater Manchester: it has completely brought us together in saying that this Government and Prime Minister must do the right thing by the whole of our nation and support everywhere, not pick us off one by one.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
What advice would the hon. Lady offer my constituents in the Vale of Glamorgan, where the infection rates are exceptionally low, given that a one-size-fits-all approach has been taken across the whole of Wales? Retailers, hairdressers, personal service providers, beauticians and all those sorts of businesses have been closed, irrespective of the exceptionally low rate. Does that make sense? What does she have to say to those businesses that have invested all their time, effort, money and innovation in creating employment and wealth?
Angela Rayner
The right hon. Member makes a point about what the Welsh Government are doing. What they are doing is putting people, business and lives first. They are working with local government and with businesses to bring the R number down. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has said that the plan for Greater Manchester as it currently stands will not bring the R rate down and that it will lead us into poverty and destitution. When I speak to the experts, they tell me that poverty and destitution have a link to how deadly this virus is. In parts of areas such as Oldham in my constituency that have faced restrictions since July—I have not been able to see my granddaughter because of those restrictions—the rates have gone up. We do not want to plunge our businesses into destitution. I am proud of the Welsh Government’s defence of the people and their support for the people of Wales. I just wish we had a better Government here in Parliament.
Our motion calls on the Government to implement their own promise that workers on the job support scheme extension will receive at least 80% of their previous income. I remember the promises the Prime Minister made, not just in this crisis but before it. He offered levelling up for communities such as mine, but he is not levelling us up; he is letting us down. Under Thatcher, we were consigned to managed decline, but now it feels like mismanaged decline. And it is not just a conflict between the north and the south, or between London and the rest. The elected leaders of our nation’s cities, regions and countries have been treated with the same contempt, from Wales to Wigan.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I pass on the condolences of the Scottish National party to the hon. Lady and her family on the loss of her aunt.
We are not in a position to field a Front-Bench spokesperson today—that might have been easier if the Government had allowed us virtual participation—but I can confirm that we will support the official Opposition in the Lobby this evening, precisely because of the hon. Lady’s point about the need for support across the UK. Any enhanced package that is provided to Liverpool, Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire must attract consequentials above what has already been guaranteed to Scotland. Scottish businesses are looking at the additional package of support that the Government have found for these English regions, and expect additional funding to be delivered to Scotland. Does she agree that that should happen for Scotland and the other devolved Administrations?
Angela Rayner
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. I absolutely agree. All our nations and regions —the whole of Great Britain—have to come together, because this virus is a challenge for us all. We cannot treat people in different parts of the country and in our nations disproportionately and disgracefully.
In Greater Manchester, we were promised a powerhouse, but what we have at the moment is a power grab. Even here in London, just this week, the Government have threatened to seize control of the tube. We now have a Prime Minister so determined to punish a Labour Mayor that he wants to whack a transport tax on his own constituents, yet the Government still refuse to take the decisive national action that is needed. Instead, they have tried to play people off against each other—divide and misrule.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I am very sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s aunt.
Will the hon. Lady she be straight and honest with British citizens when she talks about a national lockdown? Is it not the reality that the SAGE paper says that it might take multiple circuit breakers to keep this virus at low levels? Will she be clear about the impact that that would have on jobs and businesses in this country?
Angela Rayner
The hon. Member invites me to be clear and honest, and the one thing that probably most people know is that I tell it how it is and I always have. I can be clear and honest with him: the Prime Minister’s plan, as it currently stands, will not protect the people of Greater Manchester and will plunge us into more poverty. We have seen the evidence that says that. I promise him and other hon. Members across the House that the Labour party will always put the people, and the protection and security of the people, first. I ask the hon. Member to get the Prime Minister to do the same thing, instead of playing party politics with people’s lives and livelihoods.
Today this House can vote for a fair deal for all and to end these political games. No more will the Health Secretary have to tour the country like a pound shop Noel Edmonds, announcing “Deal or no deal?”. The Government can honour their own promises that every worker facing hardship on the job support scheme will get at least 80% of their previous income, because what is good enough for the office worker in the City of London is good enough for the caterer in the city of Manchester, and what was good enough for the whole country in March is good enough for the midlands and the north today. We are trying to hold the Government to their own promises. Businesses need consistency, and they need that promise honoured.
The Prime Minister told the House on 14 October that
“whatever happens, a combination of the job support scheme and universal credit will mean that nobody gets less than 93% of their current income.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 368.]
He then said that those on low incomes will get at least 80% of their income. Perhaps he can tell that to the waitress in my constituency who earned £9 an hour on a 32-hour week, serving in a central Manchester bar that has now closed. The Resolution Foundation has shown that she will end up with less than 70% of that wage under the Government’s current plan. So the Government are telling my constituents to survive on less than the minimum wage for months, because the Government cannot tell us when an area will leave tier 3 and how those restrictions will be lifted.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and thank her for the case that she is making. Is she interested, as I am, that not a single one of the interventions that she has faced from the Conservative side has been relevant to the motion that we are debating? They all seem to be dragging us back on to Labour party policy, rather than standing up for the financial settlement that they are offering to Manchester, and that we know will be going to so many other areas. So can she help me in inviting them to actually speak about the 80% that we are trying to ensure gets into some of the most impoverished people’s—some of the most impoverished workers’—pockets, rather than trying to change the debate into the one they want to have?
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I will go a little bit further and compliment some of the Tory Members who have stood up as part of Greater Manchester, and I will be incredibly disappointed if what I have seen over the past 24 hours results in this becoming a party political fight. Because in Greater Manchester, despite what the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary were trying to suggest, we were united in trying to support our citizens across the conurbation in doing the right thing, bringing the virus rate down and supporting our economy. I hope we can continue to do that. I hope we do not get distracted by messages that are not in the motion, and I absolutely hope the Prime Minister does the right thing, because this is not just about Greater Manchester—this is coming to a town near you. In so many areas now, the R number is increasing. So many areas are in tier 2; so many areas are going to go into tier 3. This is a marker to ensure that our economy survives through those problems.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
On that point about coming to a town near you: it is indeed coming to cities and towns in the Sheffield city region, it was announced today. The package of assistance is totally inadequate. It is nothing like what the leaders and the Mayor asked for. It is exactly the same as has been offered to other areas—the standard package. It is not locally negotiated; it is the standard package. As the leader of Rotherham said, “They put lots of civil servants into a room with us to tell us what we couldn’t have.” That is actually what has been happening in the negotiations.
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for his insight. Many of the local leaders I have heard from have said that it felt like they had been blackmailed and pressurised into taking a deal. Greater Manchester and the Mayor were not just trying arbitrarily to get more than somewhere else. We put a package together based on the needs of our city, our conurbation, our lowest-paid and the businesses that needed the support. It was not a bargaining chip to get this or that; it was about making sure that there was a floor that meant people were given the support that, by the way, this Government promised. They promised that support, and we are just asking them to keep to their promise.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is grossly unfair that while the Prime Minister, reportedly, is complaining about not being able to live off £150 k a year, he is expecting my constituents in Nottingham, and all the constituents of every one of us in this House, to live off two thirds of the minimum wage unless a proper economic settlement is provided?
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. People on the Government Benches might grunt, but my hon. Friend was a care worker before coming into Parliament, like myself, and knows exactly how people on the minimum wage feel, and I commend her for standing up for her constituents, not leaving them behind like many Members on those Benches seem to be doing now.
Even the two-thirds wage support under the job support scheme extension is only available to businesses legally required to close. Someone who works for a firm that is not required to close, but whose business is severely impacted as a result of the restrictions—such as a brewery supplying pubs that have to close—gets absolutely nothing.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution, which highlights the points. Does she agree that much of the debate is around tier 3 support, not to say that tier 2 areas have no support whatsoever, which emphasises the point that she makes?
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I say to the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) who keeps chuntering: you had your chance, mate. Let other people in.
For hundreds of years, Mancunians have been told to know our place, but we have never listened—from the People’s History Museum to the Mechanics Institute, from our science and industry to women’s suffrage. We will not be told what our place is, and we will not be bullied into taking it. We are proud of our history and proud of our collective contribution to our great country and determined to build a great future together.
This is not just about Greater Manchester; this is about all of us. We will not be picked off one by one. We will not be offered the crumbs when we helped bake the loaf. We deserve a fair slice and our people deserve a Government willing to protect them and to do as the Chancellor promised—“Whatever it takes”. In recent days, it has been Lancashire, Liverpool and Greater Manchester. Next week, and in the weeks ahead, it will be communities in other parts of the country that find themselves in tier 3. If the Government are prepared to wilfully inflict so much harm on their own people in the middle of a pandemic in one part of the country, they will do it to people elsewhere as well.
We are staring down the barrel of a bleak winter, because the Government have lost control of the virus: infections are rising; hospital admissions are rising; and deaths, tragically, are rising. The testing system has collapsed. People and businesses across the country will be anxious that they will not be able to make ends meet and put food on the table. Our motion today will ensure a fair national deal for the country, a vote of this House on it and the Government’s own promises to workers kept. Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this motion to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. [Interruption.] Do not heckle me while I am on my feet. I call Steve Barclay to move the manuscript amendment.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
I beg to move a manuscript amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“recognises the virus is spreading differently across the country which supports the need for a regional and local approach; acknowledges the fact that repeated national lockdowns should be avoided given the cost they have on mental wellbeing, access to NHS treatment, and jobs in the economy; supports the Government’s Job Support Scheme which protects the jobs and incomes of those in affected businesses; recognises the extra financial support provided to Local Authorities for enforcement, local contact tracing and businesses, and approves of Government trying to work with local representatives to improve enforcement and Test and Trace.”.
May I begin by expressing my condolences, and the condolences of colleagues on these Benches, to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) on the loss of her aunt?
The hon. Lady was right in her opening speech to talk about the shared desire of the British people whom we represent to do the right thing. That is why all Members of this House want to protect the lives not just of our family members, but of our constituents and to balance the actions that are needed to do so with protecting jobs and businesses. The best way to make good for the workers whom she referenced in her motion is to reduce the spread of the virus through targeted action. That is why the Prime Minister was right to outline a balanced approach, taking the difficult decisions to save lives and keep the R rate down while doing everything in our power to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people. Indeed, the deputy chief medical officer said just yesterday, when supporting the tiered regional approach, that it would be “inappropriate” to enforce a national circuit breaker as it is not
“consistent with the epidemiological picture.”
In fact, to be fair, the shadow Health Secretary was right also to talk about the wider damage of a national lockdown on our economy and society.
Alun Cairns
The evidence from the deputy chief medical officer in England is quite stark, and the statements really make people pay attention. Has my right hon. Friend seen any counter-evidence from the Welsh Government to suggest that one size fits all? My constituents in the Vale of Glamorgan have to face the lockdown of all businesses, as we did in March, in spite of the area having exceptionally low infection rates.
Steve Barclay
What was clear from what the deputy chief medical officer said was the importance of targeted action. There has been concern in respect of the Welsh Government, but I recognise that all leaders are balancing these difficult decisions. That is why I pay tribute to the leadership in Liverpool, Lancashire and South Yorkshire, who have worked constructively with the Government.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Today is the anniversary of the terrible events at Aberfan, and none of us will ever forget in Wales. I am enormously grateful to the Minister for providing £2.5 million for the moving of the tip in Tylorstown; I hope that that is just a down-payment on the rest of the money that will come. Will the Barnett formula be applied to all the financial awards that have been made to Manchester, Lancashire and other parts of England, so that additional money comes to Wales? My biggest fear is that there are so many businesses and individual tradespeople who simply cannot afford to take a fortnight off to self-isolate unless there is financial support for them.
Steve Barclay
First, the hon. Gentleman is right to recognise the importance of today, the anniversary of a national tragedy that unites us all. As I said to him last time, I am keen to work with him constructively, as I know he is, to take that work forward. Later today, I have a call with the Finance Ministers in the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Administrations, so I will be able to talk further about that. As a fellow Unionist, he will know that one of the advantages we have had throughout this pandemic is the broad shoulders we have been able to provide as a United Kingdom to the various business support and job support measures. What is announced for England is subject to the usual Barnett process, and I will discuss that. One of the concerns of Members across the House is about decisions taken in Wales that have an economic impact. It is important that these decisions are co-ordinated through the Joint Biosecurity Centre, in order that we have a consistent, scientific approach. That is a key issue that a number of Members have concerns about.
Mr Perkins
The Minister suggested a moment ago that the Mayor of Manchester had not been constructive; he praised how constructive the Mayors who had come to an agreement with him were. The Mayor of Manchester made a request for £90 million and was willing to be negotiated all the way down to £65 million, which sounds incredibly constructive to me. In the spirit of trying to bring everyone back together, would it not be better for him to recognise that the Mayor of Manchester is doing what he thinks is right—as are other Mayors and council leaders in other areas, whether or not they agree with the position that the Prime Minister and the Government come up with—and to say that everyone in this is attempting to be constructive?
Steve Barclay
I was making a factual point that picked up on the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. The Mayor of Manchester, in his discussions with Government, expressly said that Manchester should be treated differently from other areas. The hon. Lady said that the Mayor of Manchester “spoke for Great Britain”. That does a disservice to other local leaders, who have also spoken for their areas and have worked constructively with Government. I do not think it is the case that the Mayor of Manchester, unlike the Mayor of Liverpool, speaks for Great Britain in the way that the hon. Lady suggested.
The Mayor of Manchester’s position is not deliverable operationally, because local authorities do not have access to welfare payments for the dynamic aspect of joint job support—I can come on to that in my remarks—and it was at odds with the tiering approach that we set out. There is a difference, I am sorry to say, between the approach taken by the Mayor of Manchester and the constructive approach taken by other local leaders. I do not accept the premise from the hon. Lady that the Mayor of Manchester alone speaks for Great Britain, and other local leaders in Liverpool, Lancashire, South Yorkshire and elsewhere do not, or that businesses in those areas should in some way be treated worse than the businesses in Manchester—that seems a remarkable position for the Opposition to take.
Several hon. Members rose—
Steve Barclay
I will make a little progress and then of course I will give way.
In taking forward the targeted action plan that the Prime Minister has set out, we recognise that there will be significant local economic impacts, particularly for the areas in tier 3. That is why the Government have set out a package of support, and indeed why, as I say, the Mayors in other areas have worked constructively with it. This package has a number of parts. I heard reference in the shadow Minister’s opening remarks to £8 per head. That is just one component of a much wider package. It may therefore be helpful to take the House through the full suite of funding that is available.
First, local authorities are absolutely critical to the tier 3 restrictions. That is why, in addition to the £3.7 billion of un-ring-fenced grants that were announced earlier this year, the Prime Minister announced a further £1 billion of support, so that is agreed funding for local authorities that will be allocated to them shortly. In addition to that, local authorities in tier 3 will receive a further £8 per head in respect of public health measures specifically linked to enforcement within the outbreak management fund. That goes alongside other measures such as the availability of military support, which sits in addition to the infection control funding that local authorities also have access to—a further £300 million that will support localised test and trace services, specifically within tier 3—and the £1.1 billion to support infection control within the adult social care sector. Before we get on to the discussion around business support or the support for individuals through the job support scheme, it is important not to talk about local authority support just in terms of £8 per head, because that is one component of a much wider package of support that the Prime Minister has announced.
Mr Betts
I welcome the support for local testing, tracking and tracing. It should have been done months ago: that is the reality of the situation. As regards local negotiations—I put this to the Health Secretary last night and he did not deny it—there are not negotiations; there is a financial package that the Government have decided on that has been offered to all areas that have been put up to tier 3 status. It is a case of saying, “Take it or leave it: there’s no extra money going to be negotiated.” That is exactly what leaders in South Yorkshire have said it is: lots of civil servants in a room telling us what we cannot have. These have been the discussions, not negotiations, that have been happening in South Yorkshire in the past few days.
Steve Barclay
There has been a framework that we have used to shape our discussions. However, is this not what the Opposition motion, in essence, is calling for—a nationalised approach? In fact, we just heard an Opposition Member calling for the exact opposite in saying that the Mayor of Manchester had a case that was supposedly better than that of the Mayors in Liverpool or South Yorkshire, so the Mayor of Manchester should be treated a preferential way to constituents elsewhere in the north-west. Yet the hon. Gentleman, who I know comes at this very constructively—I recognise that that has always been his approach in the House—says something different. There seems to be confusion among Opposition Members. Do they want a national approach or do they want the Mayor of Manchester to be able to negotiate something allegedly on behalf of Great Britain? I do not think that was his electoral mandate.
Mr Dhesi
Many individuals are not eligible for either the self-employed income grant scheme or the coronavirus job retention scheme. I have been contacted by many of my Slough constituents, particularly the self-employed, who fear that after November they will see their incomes plummet. Does the Minister agree that they cannot be ignored and that they need support, especially if they are to go into increased lockdown restrictions?
Steve Barclay
I do agree that they cannot be ignored. In the third section of my speech I will come on to the individual support that we have in place and where that stands in international comparisons. Indeed, we debated that at Treasury questions only yesterday.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The reality is that whether in Lancashire, Liverpool, South Yorkshire or Manchester, there are insufficiencies in the package that the Government are putting on the table. I know from my own constituents in York Central, now in tier 2, that our economy is collapsing. We need to have the proper underpinning, and that is why we need the dialogue. Different economies across the country have different complexities and different needs, and that is what the Minister really needs to get a grip of.
Steve Barclay
Sure, but for much of the passage of dealing with the pandemic, Opposition Members have often cited international comparisons. Now, when we point out that the scheme we have brought forward does stand very strong comparison internationally—in fact, the furlough scheme for eight months at 80% was way above what most international comparators offered—they say, “Actually, we do not want to apply international standards anymore. We want to apply a purely bespoke approach.”
The hon. Lady is right to point to the fact that businesses are facing real pain. There is huge pressure on jobs, and that is why the Chancellor set out, in the summer economic update, the acceleration of infrastructure schemes—I think she and I would agree on them—such as the green jobs for decarbonising public sector buildings and how we will meet our net zero obligations. I suspect we share the desire to create jobs through moving that forward and the acceleration of infrastructure through Project Speed.
The Chancellor set out his plan for jobs—the doubling of work coaches, the tripling of traineeships, the £2,000 for apprenticeships—because, as the hon. Lady rightly identifies, those businesses are under significant pressure. That is why, alongside the package of measures for local authorities, we have also applied business grant support of over £11 billion, including funding of leisure and hospitality grants of between £10,000 and £25,000. Further to that, the Government have allocated discretionary business support to mayors, in the case of Liverpool and Lancashire, of a further £30 million. To help businesses with their fixed costs, such as rent and bills, we have also introduced a new business grant scheme in England, and any business legally required to close can now claim up to £3,000 depending on the rateable value of their property. They can claim grant payments of up to £1,500 per fortnight and keep claiming that as long as their businesses are required to close. That is money that does not need to be repaid.
While the grants are England-only, we are the Government for the whole United Kingdom. To address the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is no longer in his place, about what that means for the UK’s ability to support businesses in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—which we are committed to doing as the United Kingdom Government —it means we have guaranteed a further £1.3 billion for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should they choose to follow suit.
Kevin Hollinrake
Does the Minister agree that the most important thing we can do for businesses is to allow them to stay open and to keep trading? Where we are requiring businesses to close, the schemes are good and purposeful, but there are some businesses that, because of the restrictions—for example, in hospitality with the one household rule—are effectively unviable as it is restricting their business to such a significant degree. Will he consider widening the job support scheme, for example, to those businesses that are just not viable in tier 2 and tier 3 for that reason?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we debated this yesterday. Much of the debate is about tier 3, but there are businesses that are feeling the impact in tier 2, and we are acutely aware of that and we are discussing that with business leaders. The key issue there is that we have taken toggling measures, for example, the cut in VAT and the extension of the loans. |As he knows, as a senior business figure himself, cash flow is a huge issue for businesses, and the Chancellor has been very keen to work constructively with all business leaders, the trade unions and others, and to consult widely. We have been willing to listen and to extend, for example, the loans that were available in order to pick up exactly the point my hon. Friend makes in terms of businesses in tier 3.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The Minister mentioned earlier that he will meet the Finance Ministers of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland later this afternoon. Is he in a position to tell the House whether he expects further support packages for Wales to be announced at that meeting ahead of the two-week firebreak that will come in on Friday?
Steve Barclay
We have a long-standing and established methodology in terms of support across the United Kingdom through the Barnett process that allows the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] I suspect that the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) wants to come in on that point, so I will give way. It will be done through the Barnett process, but there are some specific issues raised, such as the guarantee, which we have discussed previously.
Patrick Grady
When the Minister meets the Finance Ministers this afternoon, he will hopefully be able to answer the points that the Scottish Finance Secretary raised in her letter to the Chancellor this morning asking for clarification about precisely this issue. We welcome the £700 million for support, but it is not clear whether that is purely for business support or whether it is supposed to cover all the additional consequences and costs that come from covid, including for the health service. It is important that devolved Administrations are given the support they need and any consequences that come from additional funding to the city regions.
Steve Barclay
I was reading that very letter at my desk this morning ahead of the meeting, and I know exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman refers to. We recognise—I think this was behind the constructive discussions we have had with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments—that we all need to display flexibility, given the unprecedented nature of covid. The volatility of the size of additional payments for covid is why we gave the guarantee, which I think the hon. Gentleman would equally concede was welcomed by the Scottish Government, as it allowed clearer planning in their response to covid. However, I would also make the point—on this we may disagree—that it is the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom that allow the scale of the UK Government’s response, which has protected so many jobs and businesses in Scotland.
The third area of the Government’s response, which speaks directly to the motion before the House, concerns individual support. Businesses that have been legally required to close, whether in tier 3 areas or elsewhere, will be able to claim a direct wage subsidy. For people unable to work for one week or more, their employer will still pay two thirds of their normal salary and the UK Government will cover the cost. The existing furlough scheme continues throughout October, with the new job support scheme available from November, so there will be no break in support for employees. To give businesses and people certainty, the scheme will run for six months through to the spring. The job support scheme is in line with schemes in most other major European countries, and to support the lowest paid through the crisis, we have also made our welfare system more generous and more responsive, with an additional £9 billion of funding.
Let me give the House some examples of how the job support scheme will work and interact with universal credit. A single person aged over 25 working full time on the national living wage and living in a one-bed, privately rented flat in Manchester will still receive 92% of their original net income. Likewise, thanks to the combination of the job support scheme and universal credit, a couple with one child living in a two-bedroom privately rented house, where one works part time and the other full time on the national living wage, will receive 90% of their original net income.
The question that was never answered by the Mayor of Manchester was how he would administer a top-up of the job support scheme, when he does not operationally have access to the information required to dynamically make the interactions of those payments work. It is not only that he wanted Manchester to be treated differently from Liverpool and Lancashire; he was also changing the purpose of the business support payments from one that was directed at supporting businesses in tier 3 areas to one that was about changes to our welfare provision across the entire United Kingdom.
I know that many of my hon. and right hon. Friends have been engaging constructively with the Government during these challenging times. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), for Leigh (James Grundy), for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) and for Southport (Damien Moore). Despite being relatively new to this House, they have shown real leadership in their communities, supporting families, businesses and the vulnerable, and a determination to put their constituents first and do all we can to stop the spread of this dreadful virus.
This Government are always willing to listen and to work with local leaders. The critical point is that none of these policies exists in isolation. Taken together as a package, the economic support that we are providing for areas facing higher restrictions is broad, deep and consistent, and of course all that is on top of the £200 billion of support that we have already provided through our plan for jobs. I urge anyone who questions the support that we are providing to look at the whole plan that we have set out: half a billion pounds for local enforcement; over a billion pounds for local business support; grants of half a billion pounds for businesses ordered to close every month; billions of pounds to support jobs and incomes; and billions more to strengthen our welfare safety net. This Government will continue to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people in every region of our country, while also taking targeted action to reduce the spread of the virus.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It will be obvious to everyone in the Chamber and those who wish to take part but cannot get in because it is very nearly full—I appreciate why they cannot be here—that this debate is very over-subscribed. From the very beginning, the time limit will have to be four minutes.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Not since the Peterloo massacre of 1819 has the state displayed such coercive power over the people of Greater Manchester. Oh, the irony of those talking about one nation Conservatism. It was Mayor Burnham who stood on almost exactly the same spot as Disraeli did in 1872 and spoke for a nation about what you are doing to our cities through this tiered system.
What we have seen this week has been nothing short of chaotic and incompetent. On Monday last week, the Secretary of State for Health told Greater Manchester MPs that we would be going into tier 2 lockdown—we had been there for 12 weeks, since July, without any support. Do you know what? He had unanimity in that room—he had our full support. Do you know what else? That night, The Times leaked that we were going into tier 3. That was leaked to the national press. Seven days of negotiation follows—we are just seven days older—and, to make it worse, The Guardian then leaked that we were running out of intensive care unit capacity. What the Government have forgotten is that the former Chancellor, the former right hon. Member for Tatton, gave us devolved function over some of our NHS services, so we know exactly what is going on in the hospitals. I am looking up at the Press Gallery—the Manchester Guardian should have known better than to be leaking against the city where it was founded after the massacre. This makes us so angry, up in the north.
The Government came to power on the promise of levelling up; those watching from Greater Manchester today will be reflecting on the emptiness of that promise. Tier 3 restrictions will hasten a tsunami of mental health problems already being reported to me by local general practitioners. Along with protecting people’s incomes, the Government need to prevent a mental health crisis.
We in this place are asking so much of the British people, who have gone through so much for us. The coronavirus has them at their wits’ end. Another local Wythenshawe hero from my constituency, Marcus Rashford, will be the subject of the next debate in this House. We are going to heap poverty upon the poverty of the people who go into tier 3 restrictions. The Prime Minister does not know how an area gets out of tier 3 restrictions —he did not know the answer today when challenged by the Leader of the Opposition. Not only will we face further poverty in areas that go into tier 3 restrictions, but we are now cutting off the food supply of the youngest people. Marcus Rashford is teaching the Prime Minister a thing or two about how to bring people along when tackling such an important issue.
This week, the city of Manchester has had a 17% reduction in reported coronavirus cases. The conurbation as a whole has flattened off, yet we have been in these measures for 12 weeks—since July—and now the Government want to shut us down altogether for the next 28 days, with no end in sight.
When I was a young councillor in the early ’90s, Manchester was a dying industrial mill town, after over a decade of Thatcherism. We have pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps to regenerate our airport and our city and to bring back the jobs that we lost in the lost ’80s. We are now an international cosmopolitan city, and you are drawing that away from us. You are pulling the rug from under our feet by making our citizens materially worse off. This has to stop.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
First, since so many colleagues wish to speak on this subject and the time available is so limited, I hope the House will understand if I do not take interventions. Secondly, I declare an interest as a sitting member of Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council since it has been a party to the negotiations regarding Greater Manchester moving to tier 3 yesterday.
I regret deeply the fact that negotiations collapsed yesterday in Greater Manchester, but it is imperative that negotiations continue even if one of the local leaders has left the negotiating table. I am glad to hear that the Government share this view and that negotiations are ongoing with other local leaders. My understanding is that, as well as the base grant of £22 million, the additional £60 million is still on the table for a total settlement of £82 million. I hope the Minister and other right hon. Friends will meet me, other Greater Manchester MPs and council leaders to achieve a settlement as soon as possible, given the urgency of the situation.
Concerns very much remain about support for those on the minimum wage and the self-employed. I know the Minister referred to this, but I do hope a mechanism can be found so that we can address this. I am keen to see those concerns resolved. I am also keen to keep sectors open that might consist of only a single business in my constituency—such as the Treetops soft play facility in Golborne or BJ’s Bingo hall in Leigh—which I believe may still be able to operate in a covid-secure manner. It is vital that those businesses assessed as safe to remain open are allowed to do so. The fewer businesses that close, the more generous we can be to those that have no choice but to close. I would refer to the example of how Lancashire successfully negotiated to keep gym facilities open.
Additionally, I would like to ask that the Government offer some hope to my constituents with regard to tier 3. Should infection rates fall by a suitable level after the initial 28-day period has expired, I would ask that the Government consider lifting the tier 3 restrictions.
Finally, we know that a vaccine appears to be on the horizon. I hope the Government will prioritise those areas suffering from the burden of tier 3 restrictions for the roll-out of any such a vaccine so that our lives can, at last, begin to return to normal.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friends, I am deeply disappointed and angry with the Government’s approach to the negotiations, if indeed they can be called that. Negotiations, I believe, involve listening with time allocated so that all can make their views heard, but this has not been the case with the calls I have been on or the reports I have heard from local leaders. Putting an amount of money on the table and saying “This is what you’re going to get” is not negotiating. What did Ministers expect—that Manchester would say, “Oh, we don’t want quite that much, thank you very much”?
Now we are going to be placed in tier 3, with the Government wanting to divide and rule and to talk to local leaders individually, not through the democratically elected Mayor of Manchester. It is probably worth reminding Conservative Members that it was a Conservative Government who insisted on a Greater Manchester Mayor and that Andy Burnham was overwhelmingly elected to do that role. However, when he does the job he was elected to do—stands up for the residents of Greater Manchester and refuses to allow them to be pushed into poverty—this Government brief against him and want to deal with individual leaders. This divisive strategy should not be allowed to work.
It is far too easy to call the money business support, as if it is given to faceless entities, but it is not. It is for families—the supply chain of people and families behind those businesses—and it is also for community hubs in many cases. In my constituency, sports clubs such as Highfield cricket club and the Ashton Bears are relying on bar sales to continue to provide sporting facilities. Without support, some of these clubs may no longer survive. Equally, of the more than 200 pubs in Wigan, many are wet pubs. They are not bistros and eateries serving food, but they have been an important part of the community for many years. The people who run them are worried about how they will survive another lockdown with no end in sight.
For all the people affected, the furlough payments will change from 80% to 67%. Wigan is a low-wage economy and that is a crushing blow for many people, with Christmas just around the corner. Universal credit is no replacement because of its waiting period and because most families with an average income of £20,000 would see a substantial drop in their household income.
Recovery action for debts, including bailiffs’ actions, restarted at the end of August. Families are faced with having 67% of their income—two thirds—but unfortunately, during winter, bills do not drop by a third; in fact, heating bills go up in that time. Debt charities are already experiencing a spike in calls about council tax repayment and repossessions, and they expect a rise of more than 60% in the current demand. As we move into tier 3, there needs to be a renewed package of protection for people whose income will be hit. I commend the package suggested by Citizens Advice.
I have repeatedly asked for projections of how the measures in each tier would affect the virus and what the economic impact would be. The Mayor of Greater Manchester has given me that and has suggested other ways. He has calculated how it would affect businesses and the people behind them, and how much money they would need, and nowhere have I seen those figures disproved.
Divide and rule cannot be the way forward. To control the virus and support businesses and families, I urge the Minister not to go down the damaging route of setting north against south, region against region, and local authority against local authority.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). I pass on my condolences to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), whose aunt sadly passed away in the hospital that serves my constituency.
This is my first time participating in an Opposition day debate. I am told that they are good practice, akin to a sixth-form debating society, or else a means to catch the favourable eye of the Government Whips Office with a series of rhetorical flourishes against the Opposition. Indeed, a helpful sheet of interventions is, as ever, provided for members of the young thrusters club, for which I fell short of the membership requirements.
Of course, my perspective is shaped by recent events in Greater Manchester, which have been unfortunate, to say the least. Let me set out my position clearly: I do not support tier 3 measures because of their wider effects. Perversely, the closure of covid-secure premises will make it more likely that people will meet in each other’s homes, where we know there is a far higher rate of transmission.
The isolation and loneliness that people are feeling is palpable. Increasingly, I speak with distressed constituents who are not able to enjoy a reasonable quality of life. There are support bubbles, but many vulnerable people are living in fear, terrified of criminalising themselves inadvertently, simply through usual human interactions.
To the wider point of restrictions on businesses, I am sure I speak for many of them in saying that they would much sooner be open and able to operate in a covid-secure way, given the significant amount of investment that they have made in measures. They want to trade, not be given aid. Too often in the debate so far, it has sounded as if the north is coming with a begging bowl. We are a perspicacious, hard-working people. We want our businesses to operate and provide livelihoods and jobs for others. We do not want to come with a begging bowl.
If it is the case that businesses must close by law, however, it is only right that their local representatives strive for every penny of support from the Government who have mandated their closure. At the same time, I am afraid that it is also right, given the circumstances, that local councils now deal with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government directly to ensure that they have funds to support the businesses and individuals who will be in desperate need.
Of course, I wish that that could have been done differently —and amicably. The House should not underestimate the anger felt by the public at that failure. I do not support Labour’s suggestion of a national lockdown, which makes little sense at all. Despite the theatrics—the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) was perhaps the Henry “Orator” Hunt of our modern- day Peterloo earlier—Manchester is not yet on the brink of a Paris Commune, particularly as its politicians would make a poor cast for “Les Mis”. However, what concerns me most is the coming hardship, the rising unemployment and some people’s despair. Indeed, I cannot help but reflect that the medicine risks being worse than the disease.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I am really pleased that the Government have listened to my representations and those of my city region colleagues about reopening gyms. That is so important to the mental and physical wellbeing of my constituents in Halton. It will also save jobs that would otherwise have been lost.
Despite the business support the Government have already put in place, there are over 2,000 more people unemployed in my constituency than there were in March, and youth unemployment has doubled. Placing Halton in tier 3, which I opposed, has hit the hospitality sector particularly hard, impacting especially badly on low-paid and young people. Even those businesses that have managed to remain open, such as restaurants and pubs that serve food, are struggling. The 10 pm curfew has been damaging and no one supports it. Then there are the restrictions on households meeting, which have also impacted those hospitality businesses that are still open. They have had to cut staff hours and lay staff off. Those businesses also need financial support from the Government.
Tier 3 restrictions will massively impact the supply chain that serves the hospitality industry, with the loss of more jobs. Taxi drivers are also impacted by a loss of income. The Government introduced the tiered approach to restrictions and, as we have seen in Manchester, they will be imposed if local leaders do not agree. Therefore, the Government have a clear moral responsibility to provide funding that properly supports businesses affected by tier 3 restrictions.
I have been contacted by self-employed constituents who have received little or no support, often because they do not work out of a business premises. I want the Minister to listen to some of the ordinary voices of my constituency. This is from a musician and songwriter:
“Since my last gig in February 2020 I have received absolutely NO financial aid from the various schemes put in place by this govt. Although I applied for everything, I and hundreds of thousands like me who have a limited company but no permanent work premises…are unable to access any grants, furlough or indeed support from the various systems put in place.”
This is from a sound engineer:
“I work as a freelance audio engineer and rigger. I have my own Personal Service Company of which I am the only Director and contractor and I am employed on an event by event basis in the live entertainment industry. My skills and services contribute to the creative industries which include live events, TV, film, dance and theatre and which were worth £110bn to the annual economy as evidenced in the Government’s”
own figures. He goes on to say:
“I do not see how I will be able to survive financially.”
This is from a fitness instructor:
“I would be grateful if you could highlight the fact that the majority of fitness instructors, who deliver the group exercise classes, and personal trainers are self employed and fall into the group that are hardest hit in the climate. The governments 3rd stage grant of 20% leaves a massive shortfall for people in this field.”
This is from another type of business—a coach travel business. Its owner says:
“Unfortunately whilst many of the schemes are welcome the coach industry doesn’t seem to have any sector support that it qualifies for despite being an industry hit the hardest. Companies that genuinely need a helping hand and would otherwise be successful are forgotten.”
People live to what they earn. Thousands of my constituents face massive cuts in their income without proper support. I remind the Minister that the package of support that the city region asked for was £709 million. The funding package given so far has not met the need. The Government need to provide a much more realistic package of funding and support for businesses and jobs in Halton.
I repeat what I said in the Chamber a couple of weeks ago: in order to get us through this unprecedented crisis in modern times, we need everybody to work together. I believe that we need a cross-party covid war Cabinet that at the very least has my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of Opposition in it. Constituents tell me that they want politicians to work together to find a way forward and do the right thing. We need to look again at the shielding policy, given that it is older and the most vulnerable people who are being admitted to hospital, and gain public consent again for the best, most common-sense measures, as well as washing our hands, wearing a mask and keeping a 2-metre distance.
I find it heartbreaking to see constituents who have no money, who are desperate and find it really difficult to pay bills. It really is time for the Government to step up to the mark and provide proper and better help to everybody in my constituency who needs it.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, because it is an important one. It is important that people understand the level of economic support available for their area. More than £200 billion has been put there to protect jobs, incomes and businesses.
The fact that the Opposition never want to talk about the unprecedented package of financial support measures that the Government have already piled into all areas of the country is extremely telling. Perhaps that is because the Government’s record on helping the most vulnerable get through this epidemic is outstanding. When we look at the job retention scheme, the job support scheme, the business grants, VAT deferrals, interest-free loans, help with mortgages and much more, it is difficult to argue that this Government have not economically supported our communities, but I agree that they must continue to do so.
I am pleased that packages of financial support are being drawn up for areas hit by the toughest restrictions. If someone’s business is legally required to shut because of the tier system, it is absolutely right that they should be entitled to financial support. It is interesting to watch the Labour party now attempting to paint itself as being business-friendly. Under the Opposition’s previous leader, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), they were anything but pro-business: just look at their last manifesto. For them now to claim to be the saviours of business across the country during the epidemic is laughable.
What did the former shadow Home Secretary tell Newsnight about the Leader of the Opposition? He has moved his position on remain. He has flip-flopped on Brexit. He has flip-flopped in his support for businesses and he has flip-flopped on covid. He cannot decide whether he wants a national lockdown or whether he wants to know when lockdowns will end. The only thing he has been consistent in is his ability to use hindsight. This from the right hon. and learned Gentleman who stood at last December’s general election on a specific manifesto commitment to impose the biggest tax hikes on British businesses in living memory.
I want us to be backing businesses in West Bromwich East and across the country—the wealth creators who drive our local economies and deliver jobs and prosperity for people. The covid crisis has threatened all that, but I know that we will bounce back when we level-up communities such as mine, which has been let down by the Labour party. While we do not want people to be relying on the welfare state—we want people in jobs providing for their families—it is precisely because of the generous nature of the increased UC threshold that people have been protected during the pandemic.
I pay tribute to West Bromwich jobcentre, which has done a great job in making sure that all those in West Bromwich East who needed to access UC have been able to do so. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who has done a fantastic job in securing that. I have been saying throughout the pandemic that this is the time to pull together and play our part in supporting our neighbours. I am proud that the Chancellor has so far stepped up to the challenge, and I have every faith he will continue to do so.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards), although she may have been better spending her time talking about the debate and not historical facts that have no bearing.
While much of this debate has focused on tier 3 restrictions in the light of the Government’s shambolic handling of the deal with the Mayor of Greater Manchester, worryingly little is being said by the Government about support for those regions living under tier 2 restrictions, as Bradford and West Yorkshire currently are. Under those restrictions, our businesses may not have been told to close, but let me be clear that they still face significant downturns in trading, and our hospitality sector in particular is being savaged by those rules that tell us only one household can meet up. Many people are still on furlough in tier 2 areas, as their jobs are not expected to properly return until the country opens back up again. They face the prospect of having to survive the winter on a fraction of their normal wages.
Despite the jobs and incomes that are at risk, the Government are doing nothing for tier 2 regions. Indeed, when I asked the Prime Minister just last week whether he would guarantee that local authorities will receive the support they need to help local businesses and protect the incomes of already low-paid workers, he ducked the question, telling me about funding we already know about, with nothing concrete about support for the weeks ahead.
Between March and September, my constituents saw almost 4,000 more people left unemployed, almost 1,000 of whom are aged 16 to 24, and we already have average wages that are £100 a week lower than the rest of the country. We cannot lose any more jobs or risk a further fall in wages, and the Government must act to protect jobs and incomes, because the job support scheme will not be enough to discourage employers from letting staff go. I therefore urge Ministers to accept calls from the West Yorkshire Combined Authority to give the region what it needs to protect jobs, businesses and communities and to engage constructively with West Yorkshire leaders to that end.
There must be a specific focus on the self-employed, who risk being forgotten, as they very nearly were by Ministers at the start of this crisis. Our taxi drivers, delivery drivers, tradesmen and others all deserve support, and their loss of business and income is through no fault of their own. However, if the Government force West Yorkshire into tier 3, we need to know now and be prepared. There can be no delay, and Ministers must agree to financial support packages in time. Failing to do so will leave businesses in limbo and those in low-paid employment, working fewer hours, or not working, deeply worried about how they will get by this winter.
Based on our population and the financial packages already secured by Liverpool, South Yorkshire and Lancashire, West Yorkshire will need, as a starting point, £75 million for a population of 2.5 million people if we are placed under tier 3 restrictions. Anything less would be an insult to people living in the north. In conclusion, I and other Labour Members will never stop fighting for our constituents and their jobs, businesses and communities. The Government need to step up and give regions in tiers 2 and 3 the assistance that we desperately need.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
The past few weeks have been utterly exhausting, not just for those of us who represent Greater Manchester and local authority leaders but, more importantly, for the people we represent. Areas such as my constituency have lived with restrictions for months, and there is a real sense of never having properly left the lockdown that we all endured at the start of the year. That is why today I can only express my absolute dismay at how things have gone over the past 48 hours.
None of us—I do mean none—wanted to go into tier 3. The Minister will have heard from all 27 Greater Manchester MPs at one point or another, and even the press noted our outbreak of unity. However, as the weeks dragged on and brief and counter-brief ping-ponged their way across social media and the front pages, the likelihood of getting something that works for Greater Manchester became more and more remote. I need only look at my Twitter feed today to see that Andy Burnham, consummate performer that he is, is already rewriting the past few weeks, aided by the breathless adulation of the commentariat. The important message behind all this, however, is that 2.8 million people are now in desperate need of answers.
I watched yesterday’s press conference as the Mayor donned his carefully confected outrage and gave an encore performance of his old refrain, “Nothing to do with me.” We should let local leaders, with the support of Greater Manchester’s MPs, talk to the Government about how we will be supported over the next 28 days and beyond. The people I represent are being asked to face the toughest restrictions of their lives and livelihoods since March, and I am genuinely worried—I am sure that colleagues are, too—about the future of the people and businesses in the communities we serve. I have asked the Government to ensure that their efforts are redoubled and that any settlement with individual boroughs in Greater Manchester is conducted quickly. Despite our myriad political differences, I know that the leader of Rochdale Borough Council cares deeply for the people of our borough, and I will work with him, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) and anyone else who wants to ensure that we have the support we need.
We have been very badly let down. Andy Burnham inserted himself into this process, and at every step of the way, he promoted himself as the leader of Greater Manchester and purported to speak for us all. Some of us—I include myself in this—were willing to give him some latitude. Not unlike the First Minister of Scotland, Mr Burnham has the same sort of reality distortion field, which allows him to shrug off every broken promise and failed initiative and to emerge squeaky clean. In all honesty, who would not want some of that stardust working for them?
I am a pragmatist. I just wanted the support package; I did not care who got credit for it. Unfortunately, the Mayor did. That is why, after a demand of £65 million was made at the negotiating table and the majority of that sum—92%—was offered, Andy got up and walked away from the table, all because he wanted to brag about having got more money than Merseyside or Lancashire. That dogma and demagoguery will cost people dearly.
I am supporter of devolution, which on the whole I think has been a positive force in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but I cannot say the same for the piecemeal and patchy system that we have in England. Mayors have ill-defined and varying powers, which makes them next to impossible to scrutinise or hold to account. What this whole shabby episode has told us should be a salutary lesson for us all. Today’s last minute debate has all the hallmarks of the same opportunism that has done so much damage over the past few days, no doubt with a carefully calculated vote at the end, designed for release on social media afterwards.
I implore Opposition Members to park the opportunism. I know the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) thinks this is a good crisis that the Labour party should exploit, and I know she speaks for a lot of her Front Bench colleagues when she says that. We just need to see it in the support-U-turn-oppose approach that has characterised their hindsight-heavy behaviour. [Interruption.] Excuse me, did the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) just call me scum?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We will not have remarks like that from the Front Bench: not under any circumstances, no matter how heartfelt they might be—not at all.
Angela Rayner
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask your guidance on the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) saying things in his speech about Labour Front Benchers that are inaccurate. I ask him to withdraw them.
Madam Deputy Speaker
It is not for the Chair to decide what is accurate or inaccurate. I cannot make such a judgment, but of course I will ask the hon. Gentleman to be reasonable in what he says and to be careful of his remarks. I am sure that if he feels he has said anything that is offensive to the hon. Lady, he will undoubtedly withdraw and apologise immediately.
Chris Clarkson
Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should clarify that I asked the hon. Lady whether she called me that. That is what I heard.
I implore Opposition Members to look at the damage that is being done here, to follow the example of Labour leaders in the Liverpool and Sheffield city regions who put the welfare of their constituents first and to see the debacle of Andy Burnham’s failure for the learning experience it should be.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker,
“even if it feels like there is no hope, I am telling you that there is, and that the overwhelming might of the British state will be placed at your service.”
Those were the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer only two weeks ago—words that, when reflected in this Government’s actions, show themselves to be vacuous, hollow and plainly empty. Today, millions of people, sitting at home seeing a failing test and trace system and infection rates quickly increasing, are deeply worried. They are worried that, instead of the overwhelming might of the British state being placed at their service as Ministers promised them, they, like the people of Greater Manchester, will instead be on the receiving end of the chaos and incompetence of the Conservative party.
That is why, today, we in the Labour party are calling for a one nation deal that sets out clearly for all how support for businesses and workers will be applied in local lockdowns—a one nation deal that is voted for by this Parliament and that is clear for all of us to see. That is not a big ask and neither is our ask later this afternoon to extend free school meals to the poorest kids in our country. Ministers know that on both those issues their actions today have long-term consequences.
Surely, the Government have learned the lessons from their own failures? The Conservatives’ response to the last recession, to cut investment and to cut public services, not only made our economic recovery longer and slower, but undermined the resilience of our nation to respond to the crisis we now face. Surely, the Government listen to the likes of the World Bank and look to other countries around the world for support, where there is a clear call to invest now to protect our country, our people and our way of life for the future? And, surely, the Government must understand that they are obliged to engage with and listen to regional mayors—regional mayors that they created—as the voice of their communities, when they are being told that people’s livelihoods and the future of their regional economies are on the line?
The Government’s handling of the pandemic is clearly out of control, and they need to get a grip soon. The pragmatic suggestions put forward today by the Labour party provide a way forward. We know that businesses, from advanced manufacturing and food production to the vital everyday businesses on our high streets, are at an increasing loss: despondent at the chaos of the Government’s handling of local lockdowns, frustrated by the Government’s recklessness in their handling of Brexit, and now deeply concerned about the future direction of our country, when, because of the chaos and the incompetence, vitally important decisions keep going unmade.
Lastly, I say with respect to colleagues on the Government Benches that events such as these are the events that people remember. People throughout the country will be asking themselves. “Are the Government, is my Member of Parliament, on my side—yes or no?” I hope that Members will keep that question in their minds when they vote this evening.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
The attitude that I have just seen in this Chamber is what turned many of my residents against the Labour party. It is unacceptable.
Areas such as Hyndburn and Haslingden have faced more restrictions than many other parts of the country. Since the beginning of this pandemic, I have been on regular calls with members of the Government, local leaders, local public health officials and the chief medical officer. All have had serious concerns about the rise in covid cases, particularly in recent weeks. We have worked proactively with the Government to come to an early agreement on the financial package of support, which will be a lifeline for businesses and people, while doing everything to stop the rise in transmissions, stop our hospitals being overwhelmed and not leave businesses in limbo.
Lancashire came to an agreement and has received an additional £42 million since entering the very high alert level, taking the total to £157 million, including £12 million from the contained outbreak management fund, at a rate of £8 per head, and £30 million in additional business support. I will not allow the narrative to become that Lancashire leaders—across party lines—do not care about their residents as much as the Mayor of Greater Manchester. I am sorry but that is absolutely not the case. I know how hard we have all worked for our businesses and residents.
I understand that the Mayor of Greater Manchester received 92% of what he was asking for in the negotiations and walked away from the deal on the basis of around £5 million. Given all the support that they have received already, Manchester’s councils could very easily have solved the problem and used their reserves if it was really about supporting businesses. Reserves are there for a rainy day and if this is not a rainy day, I do not know what is. Even authorities such as Hyndburn Borough Council could have pulled out £5 million if it was to support businesses. That is a small local authority, but it would have done that to protect our local hospitals.
This has always been about saving lives and protecting the NHS. Lancashire put its residents and the NHS first, with staff on the wards, and made sure that there was support for businesses. Given that my local hospital has now stood up five covid wards for patients and the staff are reporting that they are exhausted, if needed I would use my reserves, take the offer on the table and then continue the negotiations. People seem to forget about the Government’s announcement of the extra £1 billion for local authorities, which will be un-ring-fenced funding so that local authorities can decide where they use the support. That approach is welcomed by my local councils and it is important to remember that.
I am sorry, but doctors and nurses would never forgive us for standing back and leaving it for a week given that the virus spreads rapidly. The offer made was fair and was acceptable to Liverpool and Lancashire. These are hard decisions, but at the end of the day Manchester’s lives are not worth a penny more than Lancashire’s lives, which is what the Mayor of Greater Manchester is currently saying. We do not agree in Lancashire and we will stand up for the people of Lancashire in this Chamber. We do not agree with what is going on.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
After the next speaker, the time limit will be reduced to three minutes.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
As I have already said, I welcome the extra money for track and trace; that should have happened a long time ago. Directors of public health are the professionals—not Serco—and if we had given them the responsibility a long time ago, virus infection levels would not be as high as they are today.
Let us be clear: there have not been local negotiations; there have been discussions with local leaders about how much the Government are going to give them from a standard package, which is the same in every area. The Government have not denied that that is what has happened; it is the reality. If the standard package was sufficient to provide the help that businesses and local people need, I would welcome it wholeheartedly, but it is not.
Many businesses that are partly affected—such as the breweries mentioned by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and the coach companies mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg)—are not going to get help at all. They are going to struggle and they may have to close. If they close but are not forced to close by Government diktat, then of course help would not be forthcoming. People who are made unemployed will not get the same help that they did under the furlough scheme. How can they manage? It is a simple question, and the answer, of course, is that they cannot manage.
We know that the number of people going into isolation who should be isolating is not nearly sufficient, and the reason is that many families simply cannot afford two weeks without any income. For heaven’s sake, extend the scheme beyond the £500 for the poorest families to those who are on average or below average incomes to encourage them to isolate when necessary, knowing that they do not have to make a choice between putting food on their family’s table and paying their rent, and going into isolation. No family should have to make that choice.
Let me turn to the travel restrictions. What we have been told this morning about going into tier 3 is that my constituents cannot go on holiday in the United Kingdom. But they can go on holiday abroad to any country that will have them. What does that say about helping the UK tourism industry? It is exactly the opposite of what Government were saying to people only a few weeks ago: “Go on holiday in the UK, not abroad.” Can the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) confirm whether that is the case? The Health Minister this morning confirmed that it was.
Can the Minister also explain what will happen to a constituent of mine who emailed me? They said, “I am already on holiday in the UK. Do I have to come back, because I am not supposed to stay in another part of the United Kingdom once the tier 3 restrictions come in?” Nobody could give me any guidance this morning. This plan is half-baked and half thought-through. Other constituents of mine can walk to the pub in north-east Derbyshire, which will be in tier 2. The pubs will be open there and my constituents can go for a drink in them. They cannot go for a drink in my constituency, without a substantial meal. The Government are giving advice, but they are not actually enforcing it. What is going to happen in such cases?
The most stupid thing of all—I know that the Minister will not have an answer to this because nobody could give me an answer on the Zoom call this morning; they tried to, but it was a piece of nonsense—is that in my constituency during the last lockdown, people got great enjoyment from walking in the Moss valley, where the footpaths run between Sheffield and Derbyshire. When people walk on those footpaths, they walk between a tier 3 area and a tier 2 area, but the Government advice says that they are not supposed to leave a tier 3 area. I asked this morning whether people should stop at the boundary on those footpaths, and then turn around and come back. It is an unmarked boundary, so people would have to look at an Ordnance Survey map to find its location. I was told that that is the Government guidance now—that is, if someone is walking on a rural footpath, with no chance of giving covid to anyone, they should stop at that imaginary boundary, turn around and come back. I am sorry, but it is that sort of stupid, simplistic advice that brings the whole system into disrepute.
Finally, will the Government please tell people the measures by which tier 3 will end? No one has told us yet.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
As a country, we are in a situation that we do not want to be in, and the decisions that we make in this House will determine not only how we come out of covid-19, but what our country is going to look like for generations to come. It is on that note that I want to talk about one of the most deprived areas in my constituency, Whitmore Reans.
I love Whitmore Reans and the people there love it too. It has a diverse community and I always enjoy spending time there. My family and I have always been welcome and we have received the greatest of welcomes from the imam and shafiq at Bilal mosque. I enjoy many different culinary delights in the area, such as Kurdish cuisine, Turkish kebabs or the great British fish and chips—although I do have to run a few extra miles the next day.
People who live in Whitmore Reans have one of the lowest life expectancy rates in the region and live in one of the most deprived areas. The area has the highest proportion of children in families receiving low-income benefit anywhere in the city. Whitmore Reans has many multigenerational households which, despite working hard, just have enough to get by. There is no secondary school in the area and no local walk-in medical centres. Fly-tipping is rife and crime rates are high. But people love Whitmore Reans and they are proud of it. They have a great sense of community spirit and are always proud of the multiculturalism and diversity in this area.
It is clear that Whitmore Reans, as well as other places in Wolverhampton, have been left behind for decades. I want to see that change and I will not sit back and ignore the problem. I have pushed for investment in Wolverhampton almost every week since I became an MP. The Treasury must know me as the death-by-a-thousand-cuts MP, given the amount of times I have lobbied them. Only on Monday we sent the latest request about the support that we need in Wolverhampton. This is a regular occurrence and it will continue. I get it, however, that not all these requests are going to come back with a cheque and that the Treasury will have to make sure that we have a sustainable economic future as a country that is not a bottomless pit.
We do not know for how long we will be fighting this virus. We are in tier 2. With the rate rising, we could end up in tier 3 soon, having these same discussions. We do not know what measures we have to put in place as we move forward. We do not know how long we have got this for. I do not believe that a one-size-fits-all policy is right, and I support the generous economic measures that the Chancellor has provided during these difficult times. To level up, we need to have a sustainable economy that will see the children of Whitmore Reans and the rest of Wolverhampton growing up in a place that they will also love.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The sums requested by Greater Manchester yesterday were a speck compared with the millions given to Serco, G4S, KPMG, Deloitte and other private firms in this pandemic. They were a tiny speck compared with the £745 billion of quantitative easing that was announced in June, supposedly to support our economy.
In Greater Manchester alone, 408,000 people have accessed furlough since its inception, unemployment doubled between March and May, and we saw an increase in universal credit claimants of 76% between March and September. Some 3 million nationally have been excluded from any support so far, from small businesses to freelancers to new starters. Tier 3 brings a very dark winter to them. It brings a dark winter to those forced to close without adequate Government support, and for those not ordered to close the Chancellor’s scheme is not enough to support them in the face of the wider economic impact. Indeed, businesses in my constituency were already having to lay off staff, and that was under tier 2, so at the very least, the Government must agree to support the motion set out today. Not only that: they must also offer a package of support for the 3 million excluded from support so far.
The Government ask my constituents to give up their civil liberties and livelihoods, but they refuse to stand beside them with the support they need, all for a plan that even the Government scientists do not believe will work. To most, this does not appear to be an exercise in infection control. It appears to be an exercise in keeping the north and other tier 3 areas away from the rest of the country to engage in our own version of “The Hunger Games”, where only the fittest and wealthiest will survive.
Rebecca Long Bailey
No, I will not.
I say to the Minister: is it not the truth that in Greater Manchester we have been in tier 2 for months, but we have seen an increase, not a decrease, in the infection rate? Is it not the truth that the Government’s own chief medical officer said that he was “not confident”—neither was anyone else, for that matter—that tier 3 would actually work? And is it not the truth that the Government continue to ignore many of its own SAGE scientists who have advised that an immediate, short, national circuit breaker is the only way truly to bring infection rates down?
Abraham Lincoln once said:
“I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts”.
The fact is that Government negotiations yesterday were little more than an attempt to make local authorities complicit in the Government’s mismanagement of this crisis. The people deserve better. They deserve support, and they deserve the truth.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
Coronavirus has presented a huge national challenge rarely seen at this scale outside a time of war. In tackling it, we have been forced to make accommodations that sit uncomfortably with us all. Those accommodations and compromises form part of a delicate compact that we have with the British people: that they surrender some of their civil liberties and freedoms, and in return, we keep them safe. It is a simple transaction, and it is a pure one. That bond of trust is delicate, though, and once that trust is broken, it is hard to find again. I fear that we stand on the precipice, with that bond at risk of permanent damage or even fracture.
The first national lockdown was a response to an escalating pandemic of which we knew little, except that if it went unchecked, it would be deadly in more ways than one—to lives, to the capacity of the NHS to extend its care, and to our economy and our ability to prevent people from falling into poverty. It is right to recognise that as the nature of the pandemic has changed, so should our response. The virus is spreading at different rates through our countries and communities, so a regional and local approach is needed in terms of both restrictions and an economic response. Understandably, the public have coronavirus fatigue. The tone of my mailbag has changed. People were once willing to put their faith and effort into the national sacrifice and, as the weather turns, a tone of reticence is setting in. We need to turn the tide on that.
The Government’s response to this crisis has been rooted in fairness. Over £200 billion has been made available in one of the most comprehensive economic responses in the world, protecting jobs, incomes and businesses through this pandemic. That has been provided on the principle that, just as the virus does not discriminate, nor should our resolve or response to it.
But as we move to a local approach, I fear that our core principle of fairness is at risk. Recent events risk injecting politics and division into the one part of our lives where we need it least right now. That not only threatens the compact we have with the British people but delays crucial action to protect the public. It has created an outpouring of anger and envy. Politics has its place, and I have no right at all to pontificate about an elected representative standing up for their community, but these discussions should take place with an eye to the impact they have on the national and local resolve to work as one to bear down on this virus. It is for both sides—Government and local leaders—to do that.
As local leaders elsewhere have shown, constructive talks can yield results for their areas, supporting the local economy and providing surge funding for local track and trace. While I continue to make representations to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that more can be done for hospitality and events venues in places such as Barrow, I firmly believe that these talks should take place in a spirit of co-operation rather than opposition. We have an opportunity to restore trust and regain the momentum behind this collective effort, but as the pandemic has evolved, so has our economic response to it. We must remember that our words and actions resonate far beyond this place, and if we are to retain that bond of trust with the public, we must find common ground once again.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I am sure I am not the only person in the House who is suffering from an overwhelming and frustrating sense of déjà vu. Often in this crisis, I feel like a parent dealing with a petulant teenager—it does not matter how often we say it, because even though they know in their heart of hearts that their parents are right, they do not want to admit it. Like that parent of a petulant teenager, the nagging from Opposition Members is because we care. We care about the outcome, and we care about people who are suffering across this country.
We care about businesses such as the long-established recruitment firm in my constituency that came to me because it did not qualify for support, or the company I spoke to this morning that was successful until March and now has to make people redundant—something that would have been unthinkable a year ago. This evening, I will be talking to constituents about how we can save Murrayfield ice rink, one of not only Edinburgh’s but Scotland’s most loved and used facilities. These might all be statistics to the Government; I hope they are not. But behind every single one of these cases are people—employees who are suffering and many self-employed people who have had no income for months.
Minister, this Government have to admit it, and admit it soon: what we saw yesterday in Greater Manchester is not an isolated case. People up and down this country feel abandoned and feel that the Government are not doing enough for them. They want to know why we are letting them down. They have contributed to the economy for years, and now they need something back—where is it? They face unprecedented hardship. That will only continue, and for some it will get worse.
It is an accepted fact in this country, repeated by various Conservative Governments over the years, that small businesses, entrepreneurs and innovators are the backbone of the British economy. Minister, that back is breaking, and it needs this Government’s help. We need them to bring back the original job retention scheme after the end of this month and to keep it going until June next year; to extend the business rates holiday to the end of 2021 to protect the retail, hospitality, leisure and childcare sectors; and to bring in those excluded groups who have nothing.
Einstein said that to do the same thing repeatedly and expect a different result is madness. Well, Minister, I am prepared to indulge in that madness in the hope, which I hope is not a vain one, that the Government will eventually listen to the many voices in this country saying that we need to keep furlough—full furlough, the job retention scheme. We need to support more people. We need our economy to survive this, because without it we are all in deep, deep trouble.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I did not want to interrupt the hon. Lady’s rhetoric, but three times during her speech she addressed the Minister. Yes, I see she gets the point. I make the point so that Members who are new to the House will not think she is correct, and I let her do it three times. The hon. Lady clearly knows, and I hope others will take note, that she should address the Chair.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Lancashire has been hit incredibly hard by covid-19, and Burnley particularly so. Our case rate is among the highest in Lancashire and our economy is hurting, but we are also a hardy bunch. We have a “just get on with it” attitude, and that means we find industrial solutions for the future, we back our local businesses and we will come through this stronger than ever. In that vein, I thank local leaders from the county council and district councils for all their work to reach an agreement with the Government that sees our businesses and our people protected.
Today’s debate has been framed as though support is non-existent, but at every stage of this pandemic the Government have provided whatever support has been necessary. That is not because of those playing party politics; it is because of hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House who have fought for their constituents, working with the Chancellor and the whole Government.
I understand why the Opposition are trying to frame this debate as though they are standing up for left-behind communities, but let me remind them that it is they who left them behind. Year after year, decade after decade, they ignored the north of England, both in government and in opposition. That is why I sit here, because I promised never again to allow Burnley and Padiham, Worsthorne and Cliviger or Hapton and Dunnockshaw to languish as they allowed. I promised to level up, and that is exactly what I remain focused on.
Yes, that includes managing the covid-19 outbreak. I will never stop lobbying the Government, publicly and privately, to ensure that they understand my local economy and understand the support we need, particularly when their interventions hurt us. However, I remain convinced, just as I did at the start of this crisis, that we are doing the right thing.
Hundreds of millions of pounds have gone into Lancashire to support our businesses and our people. In the past week alone, £42 million has gone into the county to support businesses and people. That will support the landlord and landlady of the village pub and the entrepreneur who started their new business only a matter of weeks ago. There is another £12 million to support the public health response.
I say to all the businesses in Burnley that I am here to lobby for you, and I say to the Government that the support we have in place is welcome and essential, but I will never stop lobbying on behalf of the businesses that create the jobs on which local residents in Burnley rely.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Government are fooling nobody. They always try to blame someone else when they walk away from a negotiation, not taking any responsibility for their failure.
Greater Manchester’s leaders produced a carefully costed plan to deliver what our region needs to support our businesses and our people, and that was £90 million. When the Government refused, our ask was reduced to £75 million and then further to £65 million, before the Government walked away from the negotiation. It is shameful for Tory MPs from Greater Manchester to blame our Mayor and our local leaders for trying to protect our economy and our residents. Our local councils cannot do this on their own. They are already on their knees because of the extra costs and the drop in revenues as a result of this crisis.
We need help, but the rationale for the Government’s offer of help has been hard to fathom. There is no consultation, and no transparency on how it has been arrived at. As far as we can see, it appears to involve a per capita figure for business support. How can that make sense when business density and business needs are different for different areas? So I ask the Minister: why can we not have a more sophisticated formula? That is perfectly possible, and it could take into account previous needs. Just as an example, when the small business grant scheme was opened, there were 22,000 applications in the Liverpool city region, 31,000 applications in Lancashire and 47,000 applications in Greater Manchester. The needs are different in different regions.
A formula could also take into account the size of our economy and the extent to which it supports the wider region, as Greater Manchester does. We could take into account the number of low-paid workers in a region, to come up with a formula and a figure that truly takes need into account. If support is per capita based on population, what happens when a rural area with residential areas but little business or industry goes into tier 3? What would happen if an area such as Bournemouth and Poole, with a high retired population, went into tier 3 ? Would it get the same business support? That would make no sense, and it would be the opposite of levelling up.
Jeff Smith
I will take a brief intervention, but I will try not to take the extra time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Sam Tarry
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not about a north-south or a Manchester-London divide? Last night, Londoners were told they must accept fare rises way above inflation, a forced council tax hike and, on top of that, even more punitive measures including taking control of the Greater London Authority out of the hands of the Mayor of London. Surely this is about crushing devolution. Does my hon. Friend also agree that the Mayor of London should not be punished for standing shoulder to shoulder with our friends in the north?
Jeff Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about individuals standing up for their area. The Mayor of London is doing so, and the Mayor of Greater Manchester is doing so as well.
We keep being told that the Government say the £60 million is still on the table for Greater Manchester, but now it seems to be on the table only for individual councils unless our Mayor will simply accept the Government’s take-it-or-leave-it offer. It is clear from the Secretary of State’s answers in the Chamber last night that the Government now want to deal only with individual councils. Is it not true that the Government’s policy towards Greater Manchester is no longer “We’re all in this together” but divide and rule? That is not the way a responsible Government should be behaving in a time of crisis.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Obviously, I rise today with the news that South Yorkshire, of which Rother Valley is a key part, has now entered into tier 3. This is not a decision that any of us wants and it is not something that any of us thought was going to happen, but in order to save lives, this is what we have had to do. Saving lives is what this debate is all about, and we should not get away from that fact. I am grateful for the cross-party work that we have done across South Yorkshire, and I want to thank especially my fellow Rotherham area MPs, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), and the council leader, Chris Reed, for working together with the Mayor to provide cross-party support. That is how we got £41 million extra invested in our area to protect jobs and to protect lives. Throughout our negotiations, one thing we have never done is put the lives of our residents at risk, because we understand that getting the virus under control is what is important.
That is not what has been going on in Manchester, which is grandstanding. I honestly think that is a disgrace. The Mayor of Manchester is playing fast and loose with people’s lives when it comes to this virus. With every day, and every minute, that goes past without Manchester going into a proper lockdown, more people will get infected and more people may ultimately suffer the worst fate ever. It is a disgrace that Manchester is being sold out by its so-called political leadership, which is not taking the hard decision to try to save lives.
This Government are trying to save lives. If Lancashire can work together to save lives, if Liverpool can work together to save lives and if South Yorkshire can work together to save lives, why cannot Manchester work together? Why are we doing this? Why do we see in the news that the Mayor of Manchester claims that he was only told about the deal halfway through a phone interview, when in fact he was told before? That is just grandstanding. It is playing politics with people’s lives and it is a disgrace that should shame everyone. We should not be playing politics with people’s lives.
We should be helping businesses. Basically, businesses need support. Like all Members, I have great concerns about the businesses in my constituency, whether it is the pubs, the restaurants or the coach services. There are concerns, but ultimately we must work together to save lives. Nobody benefits from the Mayor of Manchester playing politics with people’s lives, and that is what it is. By not implementing procedures to save lives, the virus will run amok, and nothing—nothing; no faux negotiations—can obscure the fact that lives are being put at risk by a Mayor of Manchester who clearly wants to make a political point rather than look after his people.
I for one in South Yorkshire will never stand by and put my residents’ lives and health at risk for anything. Regardless of parties or anything else, lives must come first. I am pleased that so many people across the House have done that; it is a shame that it is not the case in Manchester.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
I have to say, I find the approach that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) has taken—and, indeed, that the whole Government are taking to the virus—and the remarks that he has just made so profoundly depressing. In case he or anybody else has not got the memo, the virus has already started to run amok in our country. The Government have already lost control of this virus. At a time when we all need to pull together, in the context of a global emergency, the Government are pursuing rhetoric and a narrative that is all about dividing communities from one another and sowing division, as if our country needs any more division after the last few years—we have already had quite enough of that. Why pit mayor against mayor? Why pit region against region?
The virus does not care for geographical boundaries or which local or national official is ultimately responsible for any of our policies. The virus is running wild through our country. We all need to pull together, and the Government therefore need to behave as the Government of a United Kingdom and pursue a national strategy that is comprehensible and understandable to the vast majority of us—one that is rational and does not mean careering from one type of measure to another, doing 180° turns from one day to the next. We need some rationality and a clear national strategy from the Government.
The virus has shown the absolute mess of English devolution under this Government, because it is not true devolution; it is just devolution of blame and responsibility for decisions that local people are not involved in. The Government are going to have to change course, because everything that we know about strategies that work to get the virus under control shows that we need local expertise and locally led decision making.
We also need a package of support that can protect jobs and businesses. Nothing that the Government have done since the tiers were introduced, particularly in areas such as mine, which is under tier 2 restrictions, will go far enough to protect jobs, livelihoods and businesses, which will be crucial to our economic recovery when we are through the worst of the crisis. The cost of borrowing is low at this point. I say to all those who behave as though this one change in the measures to support businesses and jobs will somehow destroy our economy: we are in unprecedented times. The cost of borrowing is low, and we should do what other nations are doing. We should provide as much support as necessary to save as many jobs and businesses as possible, so that there is a viable economy for us to regrow once we are back out of this crisis.
Finally, I urge the Minister to deal with the fact that areas in tier 2, such as Birmingham, are in the worst of all worlds, because their business base has been decimated by public health measures, but businesses are not forced to close, so they do not get any support. It is nonsensical that we should end up wishing we were in tier 3 just to get some support. The Government must change course.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Unfortunately, during today’s debate and over the last couple of weeks, we have seen Opposition Members trying to have it both ways. This is a moment of national crisis, yet we have seen no attempt at being constructive and no positive ideas at all. This Government have delivered a package of £200 billion for this country, which must be seen in an international context, when we look at some of the particular measures that the Government have introduced to protect jobs and livelihoods across the country. We have seen £40 billion for furlough and 9.6 million jobs protected, over 11,000 of which were in my Birmingham, Northfield constituency. We have seen the new job support scheme and £9 billion of extra money for welfare. We have seen VAT cuts for hospitality and grants and loans for businesses across the country, which have enabled jobs and businesses to succeed, looking after people.
What have we got from the Opposition? They are complaining about the impact of these restrictions on businesses, but what would they do instead? They would close them all, causing untold misery to many millions of people across this country in terms of jobs. Would it work? They do not know. They would have circuit breaker after circuit breaker, or fire break after fire break—call it what you like; it is a lockdown—and have them multiple times. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) pointed out, the very definition of madness, as Einstein said, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
The Opposition ask for more money for local government. Well, we have seen the consequences of that in my Birmingham, Northfield constituency. For years, the council has attempted to put a bus lane down Bristol Road South, and it has used covid response money in order to put that bus lane there because it did not have the guts to do the consultation in the first place. Instead of talking to people about what response to covid they wanted, it imposed it overnight. That is why, working with my local councillors, we have collected a petition of over 2,700 names against this ludicrous idea, which was all in the name of protecting the city against covid.
What we have seen throughout this debate is opportunism and no constructive ideas. There is no perfect response to the virus. This is not about the UK acting on its own against it; it is about the whole world’s response. Everybody is learning as we go along. I have confidence that this Government are listening and, most importantly, reacting.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
My region is now under tier 3 measures, meaning that many of the industries my city relies on are facing devastation for the second time this year. The Government have suggested that the 67% job support scheme will be topped up to 80% by universal credit, but we all know that delays in receiving universal credit are one of the primary reasons for referrals to food banks. It is simply not acceptable to expect people to be able to make ends meet with so little support.
I say this speaking from my own personal experience as someone who used to be a hackney cab driver in Liverpool and is extremely proud of that fact. It absolutely breaks my heart to speak to my former colleagues about the dire situation they now find themselves in. Cab drivers, like the musicians, artists, DJs, bar workers and kitchen staff, are the beating heart of my city, and all should be treated as the hugely important jobs they are now and will be in future. They are viable. They must be supported to rebuild our communities once we get through this. If not, they are thrown under the proverbial bus. It feels like a Tory Government once more, going back to the ’80s—washing their hands of the working class when we need that support now more than ever.
I genuinely fear that the Chancellor, widely regarded as one of the richest men in Parliament, has absolutely no idea of just what he is asking of people and just what he is putting our communities through. Can he really appreciate what it means to live off £5.76 an hour? If he had walked in their shoes, maybe the strategy he is following would be different. In fact, I invite him to come to Liverpool—come to the taxi ranks and speak to the scouse cabbies—and maybe the strategy will change, because he will be given some pointers on what is required to save these industries from decimation.
The virus was nobody’s fault, so our communities should not be punished by this Government. We need to show all the communities throughout our regions that they are valued. The Chancellor has it in his power to provide the economic support that tier 3 areas like Liverpool and others mentioned today need. I urge him to implement the measures in the motion, increase the job support scheme to at least 80%, and provide fair funding for the regions and communities we all serve.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
I speak to a lot of people across the four nations of this great country, and in Derbyshire, too, and their overwhelming view is that this Government are being fair. The Government have outlined a clear and fair national criteria for supporting people under tier 3 restrictions. That comes on top of the huge national support that has historically been offered to local authorities, businesses and individuals over the past few months.
The Government are protecting 80% of the salaries of those on lower incomes through the job retention scheme and universal credit contributions, which I know is more generous than that offered by many countries in the world. In particular, it is better than that offered in France, Germany and Spain.
The long-term battle here is to defeat and manage the virus and to promote economic recovery. It is only with prosperity that we can have freedom and rights for everybody. The virus’s transmission must be thwarted, so I welcome the Government’s focus on track and trace. On money, the Government are fundamentally fair. We are not going back to the times of trade union discussions when people can shout and scream to get what they can out of the Government. This Government are consistent and fair.
I was interested to hear the Prime Minister confirm today that Manchester will be getting £60 million overall in the same fair way as other regions, so all the shouting and screaming of the petulant Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, is frankly ridiculous. The single most important way the Government can support communities is to carry on with track and trace. The delivery of more than 300,000 tests a day facilitates progress in this area to stop transmission rates in the worst-affected areas. For all their rhetoric, this achievement would have proved impossible under the Opposition, because of their refusal to support the Government’s national approach on testing, which is Europe-leading. They have an ideological fear of private enterprise and would not have been able to deliver any of this. Those people I speak to across this great nation of ours are grateful to Boris and to Rishi—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We do not refer to Members of Parliament by their Christian or other names.
Miss Dines
I mean the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I was also surprised to hear the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) say that the track and trace system had collapsed—she clearly reads a different dictionary from me. I was thinking back to those times when I was a child and the trade unions thought that they ran the country. Well, similarly, Andy Burnham may run his city, but we need fairer, more moderate tones in discussions as to how to get through this crisis.
In conclusion, this is not too good a crisis to go to waste. We will work together and receive—
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
I will, if I may, take a moment to add my condolences to my good friend on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and her family at the loss of her aunt.
It has been a tumultuous time for communities in the north and in West Yorkshire. We know the sacrifices that people have made, losing loved ones, jobs, homes and futures. As a proud Yorkshire woman, I know that we have grit, determination and a sense of community, and I know that we will get through this. I make this request of the Minister: if West Yorkshire is placed under the same restrictions as Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire, will the Government not abandon my community, my people, with the same disregard for the impact that it will have on the poorest as they have in Greater Manchester? They cannot expect a family living on £300 a week to now be living on £200 a week and not go into poverty. They cannot expect those on the minimum wage now to get two thirds of those wages and not to be living in poverty. We know that hundreds of thousands of people across this community and across the country do not even have £100 of savings.
Added to that is the sheer arrogance of the Government in the way that they have dealt with the leadership of Greater Manchester, excluding MPs from briefings, trying to set one elected Mayor against another, leaving the people of Greater Manchester anxious and concerned about how they will pay their bills. They have pitted one community against another, young against old, vulnerable against healthy, rich against poor, and city against town. I wish to put it on the record that I stand shoulder to shoulder with the Mayor of Greater Manchester and all that he is doing, working with others to get the support of his community so that they have enough to live on.
Let us not forget landlords and utility companies: they will not be interested in the argument that a worker is now getting only two thirds of their current income. This Government are happy to allocate billions for botched schemes, but it is begging bowls for the rest of us. We know that there was £108 million for private companies to make PPE they had never made before, and £12 billion for track and trace that was a complete shambles, yet £5 million was just a step too far to protect the livelihoods of millions of citizens across Greater Manchester—so many people paying an unnecessarily high price for Government chaos.
Tomorrow, the Prime Minister will make a great fanfare of speaking about the northern powerhouse, when for so many of the people I represent it is more like the northern poorhouse. It is not just Labour leaders who are exasperated at the Prime Minister’s disregard for the people of the north, but former Tory Minister Lord O’Neill, writing in the Yorkshire Post today, and he is right. With over 40 leaders across the north standing alongside Greater Manchester leaders, I add my voice to their ask of Parliament to enable us to have a vote on the motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The wind-ups will begin sharp at one minute to four.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Much of the discussion in the past week has centred around support for packages in Greater Manchester, in Lancashire and in the wider Merseyside region—three areas that border my constituency. We sit, in Warrington South, at a tipping point, but still in tier 2.
It is a great shame that the political theatrics from the Mayor of Greater Manchester in the past 24 hours have been allowed to dominate the airwaves. This is not a north-south debate. All the efforts of every Member of the House should be focused on defeating the virus and protecting livelihoods, and I agree with my neighbour, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who said that now is the time to pull together.
Today’s debate is about economic support packages for areas with local restrictions. Given that Warrington remains an area with tier 2 restrictions, I want to highlight some of the challenges that businesses in my constituency are telling me about, while recognising some of the fantastic steps that are already being taken by the Government.
The approach that, wherever you live, be it in the north-west or the south-east, you get the same support, is absolutely the right one nation approach to take. In this country we have seen the most comprehensive economic response in the world, backed by over £200 billion to protect jobs, incomes and businesses throughout and beyond the pandemic. As the pandemic evolves, so too must our policies, and I welcome steps to support businesses forced to close due to national or local restrictions, whereby they will now receive £3,000 a month. We are also providing a £500 payment to support those on low incomes who have been asked to self-isolate.
If I may, I want to give some feedback to the Minister from hospitality businesses in my constituency in tier 2, where a ban on mixing socially with friends in a pub is combined with a 10 pm closing time. The impact has been far greater than many may have anticipated. Daniel Benson from the Hop Co bar in Warrington wrote to me, having spent thousands on creating a covid-safe environment. He now cannot operate sustainably due to the new restrictions. I have also heard from Kerry Shadwell, landlady at the Red Lion in Stockton Heath, a traditional pub in the heart of the community, with a rateable value slightly over £51,000. They were not eligible for any grants earlier and are now facing more pressures. They have seen their capacity reduce. They had to introduce table service, incurring extra costs. Understandably, they are now asking how they can continue.
Earlier in the year, I argued for sector-specific support. Now is the time for hospitality sectors in particular, in tier 2, to get sector-specific support. I ask the Minister to take the matter back to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Covid restrictions in tiers 2 and 3 have put untold pressure on a wide range of businesses, and while some have been provided for, many have not. Our hospitality industry has taken a huge hit, but what about its supply chains? Food and drink wholesalers have seen a 70% reduction in sales, and with no financial support, many are on the brink of collapse. But it is not just hospitality venues that they serve but our schools, hospitals, prisons and care homes; and some of that is specialist food, which cannot be bought in a supermarket.
Just this weekend, I read that a Treasury spokesman had said that support for the hospitality sector “and its wider chain” was available, so I spoke to the supply sector, and they said that they certainly had not had support. Bidfood, based in my constituency, had seen an almost 50% downturn in sales, and consequently had to make redundancies. They tell me that the food supply industry has not yet been eligible for any Government financial support, despite what the Treasury says. Wholesalers such as Bidfood and Castell Howell, based in Llanelli, are fantastic supporters of community campaigns. They have helped me with my summer lunch club, the Swansea Together coronavirus response and the “Everyone Deserves a Christmas” campaign. But now they need support to help them to survive.
Food and drink wholesalers desperately need the furlough scheme to be extended, prolonged business rates relief and discretionary grants to enable them to survive the crisis. They do not know how long the uncertain times will last—we do not know and the Prime Minister and his Government do not know. But what we do know is that these areas facing additional restrictions need additional support, and they need it now.
Too many times during this pandemic, measures have been put in place too late because of this Government’s failure to be decisive. The First Minister in Wales has taken the decision to introduce a fire-break lockdown, and I have no doubt that many businesses across Wales will be disappointed to be closing their doors again. But they will understand that this has to be done. We must ensure that they get the financial support to see them through this time.
This lockdown is falling between two different Government schemes. The First Minister asked the Treasury to bring forward the job support scheme and to work with the Welsh Government—they even offered financial support to make sure that businesses in Wales would be helped. The Prime Minister constantly talks about putting his arm around the nation. Well, now is his opportunity to do that: embrace the First Minister’s suggestion and make sure that businesses in Wales can survive this pandemic and this lockdown.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Since March, the UK Government have provided unprecedented support to Wales, including £4.4 billion in financial support to the Welsh Government and the protection of 400,000 jobs through the furlough scheme. In my constituency of Clwyd South, many people, businesses and organisations have asked me to thank the Chancellor for providing such widespread and well targeted support.
At the heart of the debate today is the issue of responsibility for economic support when areas of the UK face additional restrictions. Implicit within it is the understanding by all parties that lockdown does have an impact on businesses and jobs, even with the most generous package of support. We were therefore surprised to learn last weekend via a leaked letter that the Welsh Government were intending to lock down all of Wales for two and a half weeks from Friday, given that significant parts of the country have low infection rates.
Many people across Wales feel that the Welsh Government approach should, like the Westminster Government’s, be targeted at the areas of high infection and that the tier system should also be introduced in Wales. The national lockdown in Wales is therefore unnecessarily damaging businesses and jobs, as was implicitly agreed by the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). It is harming businesses in areas of low infection, which then puts a huge extra burden on the provision of economic support from the Government.
It is difficult to understand how the Welsh Government have arrived at their decision, but part of the answer lies in their reluctance to co-operate with the UK Government on covid-19 discussions and the fact that they deliberately ignored the reality explained to them by the UK Government: that the new package of financial support could not be delivered until the beginning of November. It is also due to the fact that they have been very slow to publish coronavirus infection rates district by district; such figures were available from Public Health Wales only yesterday, well after the lockdown decision had been made. The other reason is a lack of scrutiny and accountability within the Senedd, where the national lockdown was not even debated before it was announced—a sharp contrast to this House, where the level of scrutiny of ministerial decisions is rightly much higher, as this debate and many others demonstrate.
In conclusion, fair economic support is vital, but it is also closely related to making the right decisions about lockdown given that the broad shoulders of the UK Treasury’s resources are not limitless and that we need to target financial support, just as we need to target restrictions on those areas with the highest rates of infection.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a huge misfortune that, at the moment the entire world is grappling with this pandemic, the United Kingdom should be stuck with this Government—probably the most incompetent Government that there has ever been—at a moment when never more has there been a need for a strong and reliable Government. When the whole country is looking to the Government for leadership, for them to instead be involved in the dreadful spectacle of politicising and trying to split up areas such as Greater Manchester—trying to get people to work against each other, rather than working together—at a moment like this says everything not only about their competence, but about what motivates them.
The Government are now claiming that they had a formula all along, but that has so transparently been done after the event to justify what they offered to Greater Manchester. Surely a sensible business support formula would work on the basis of the number of workers that an area has, not the number of citizens. The deal that the Greater Manchester Mayor asked for would replace 80% of the income of those workers on low wages put out of work by the Government’s incompetence. It is an area, remember, that has been in tier 2 for months. In Chesterfield, we are just going into tier 2 and we see the appalling consequences it has for our hospitality sector, which is getting no support whatever. All the way through, the Government’s eyes have been on the political win rather than on the best interests of the people they are here to serve.
If the Government had a formula all along, why was Manchester getting only £22 million at 3 o’clock and £60 million again by 7 o’clock? Why is Sheffield city region getting £6 million less in business support than the formula says? Why was the initial offer to Manchester, of £55 million, £3 million less than what the Government now say that formula is? If there is actually a formula, it does not add up. They do not even lie well. The Government are so inept that they cannot even get their story straight when they are screwing people over.
The whole charade would not be so bad if the Government had the slightest compunction about wasting billions of pounds of public money. They are the Government who conspired to deny a cash-strapped council £50 million from Richard Desmond, and who pay consultants £7,000 a day to screw up track and trace, but when it comes to laying people off—because all the Government’s measures so far have failed—the people of Manchester are not even worth £20. What a shabby disgrace!
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
To resume her seat at 3.59, I call Suzanne Webb.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
We are having this debate due to the drawn-out actions of others. The Government’s offer to support businesses in Manchester is generous and, importantly, proportionate to the support already given to Liverpool and Lancashire. I am bitterly disappointed that, after long, drawn-out negotiations, the offer of support was rejected. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we have a better chance of defeating the virus if we work together. Compare that to what is happening in the west midlands. I am thankful we have Andy Street as the Mayor of the west midlands, who has already said that he will not accept a public and drawn-out negotiation with the Government. He will not put lives at risk.
Our Mayor’s aim is to agree measures alongside other local leaders on a cross-party basis well in advance of any move to a higher tier, so that we can protect businesses and livelihoods without delay. That is real leadership in the face of the biggest public health crisis we have faced in a generation. When the NHS is at risk, that is when we are at the moment of greatest danger. Those who are not willing to act collectively at the time of our country’s greatest need put the NHS and people’s lives at risk.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I apologise to the 38 Members who were not able to be called because of the constraints of time and the large number of Members who wished to participate. I call Anneliese Dodds.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to everyone who has participated in this debate. There have been a number of fantastic contributions, particularly from Opposition Members. I am sure there would have been many more if we had had time. Running through all the contributions, including those from the Government Benches, are three questions that the Government seem absolutely determined not to answer. I hope they finally will do so in the next 10 minutes.
The first question is about this phantom framework. It is not Halloween yet, but it feels like we are already there with this phantom framework. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary said there was a framework for support for jobs and businesses in tier 3 areas, and he said that the framework offered £20 per head. If that framework is there, why have the Government not published it? Why will they not put it in front of us? Why will they not write it down anywhere so that we can see it? Why will they not let us vote on it? I know the reason why. They will not do that because they know it has not always been used—I will come back to that point later—but also because they know that it is iniquitous. There is no reason why only a per capita formula has been used. For example, we could be looking at the length of time that areas have been under restrictions. We could be looking at the number of businesses impacted, the number of workers impacted, the extent of deprivation or the extent of low pay, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) set out so ably. Why are the Government so secretive about this phantom framework, and why are Conservative Members letting them get away with it?
Leicester, for example, was not covered by that phantom framework. It received less than half the business support that other areas have received. Here is the rub—the rub we all know about, but which Conservative Members do not seem willing to stand up to. If that phantom framework was in place all the time, why on earth have we had the spectacle of these one-sided negotiations? As my hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) and for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) have said, the Government are picking regions off one after the other. It has been an iniquitous mess over the last couple of weeks, and it is getting messier day by day. The Chief Secretary said today that Barnett consequentials are going to be used for this phantom formula. Are they? Again, is that written down anywhere? I cannot see it. He made reference to funding announced by the Prime Minister, but we still have no detail on that funding for local government, with no indication of how it will be allocated and no indication of when it will arrive. We still know nothing about what has happened to the £1.3 billion underspend on the business grants programme. That could be used right now to support businesses that are struggling, but the Government are refusing to do so. The first question—and I would be really grateful if the Government finally answered this—is: why will they not be open about the phantom framework, when will they publish it, when will they let us vote on it and when will they stop this absolute chaos?
The second big question is: why will the Government not be open about the job support scheme extension and the fact that, alongside universal credit, it often will not prevent hardship at all? The Mayor of Greater Manchester and other local leaders are absolutely right to highlight this. The Government have been all over the place on this issue. The Prime Minister actually had to correct himself because he got it wrong. Again, the Chief Secretary mentioned some examples today, but I think we all noticed that he left some critical bits out of those examples, did he not? There is the fact that people have to wait for five weeks before they get that support, that they will not get it to the same extent if they have saved above £6,000 or, indeed, that it is dependent on their partner’s circumstances as well. My hon. Friends the Members for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) ably set that out. Those exclusions can be fixed to make a reality of what Government figures have said, rather than just the rhetoric, but the Government are refusing to do this. They could switch the initial grant into a loan in universal credit, they could remove the savings threshold and they could push local housing allowance up to median rents. Why will they not?
The third question that this Government are running away from is: why do they already seem to accept the failure of JSS—not the JSS extension, but JSS—even though it has not even started? I thought it was highly instructive that, when discussion about support for businesses in tier 2 areas came up during this debate, neither the Chief Secretary nor indeed any Conservative Members mentioned the JSS. It seems as though the Government have already factored into their plans the failure of that scheme. My hon. Friends the Members for Halton (Derek Twigg), for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and, indeed, for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) spelled out very clearly the implications of that failure and that of the new version of the self- employment income support scheme for their constituents.
While we have all been sitting in this Chamber, we have received the news that the Chancellor is coming tomorrow—he is coming tomorrow—to make an economic statement. I say to him: seize this chance. He should seize this chance to fix the JSS so that it actually supports jobs rather than doing so little to stem the tide of unemployment, and seize this chance to support workers facing hardship under JSS-plus—the JSS extension. He should also sort out this support for tier 3 areas and end this appalling charade. Finally, in the time I have left let me just say that the last thing the Chancellor needs to do tomorrow is to get with the programme—the programme of what his Prime Minister has said—because the Prime Minister said that he would not rule out a circuit breaker as he knows that the science supports one.
We all know in our heart of hearts, as we have heard time and again from Government Members today, that the system of rolling regional restrictions is hammering our country’s economy but not doing enough to get the virus down. The only alternative is a circuit breaker. Research shows that failing to implement a circuit break to fix test, trace and isolate could cost our economy £110 billion. Tomorrow, the Chancellor must come here and act now to get a grip on this virus and save lives and livelihoods.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
We have had a lively, passionate and—what should I say?—vigorous debate across the House. We have heard a wide range of arguments and a considerable amount of passion. It is clear, however, that when we cut through the air being discharged on either side of the Chamber, there is a commonality of values across the House. In fact, the House is united on the most fundamental issues that we face, which are the need to combat this terrible covid-19 virus; the need to protect public health; the need to make every effort to prevent economic harm to our businesses, jobs and people; and the need to protect the fabric of our society. We all share those ambitions.
To do that, we need to do achieve a balance, as the Chancellor discussed last week. In the words of the deputy chief medical officer last night, we are trying to walk “a very fine line” between getting the virus under control in areas where it is surging and incurring minimal damage to the daily lives and livelihoods of people across the country. It was noticeable that the deputy chief medical officer also made it explicit that he did not support a national lockdown, that he backed a local approach and that it would not be appropriate to impose the strictest restrictions across the country. I thought that was an important and telling point from an independent adviser.
For the same reasons, it is clear that no Government, in any normal circumstances, would wish to impose the restrictions that we are discussing today. I can only express my thanks and recognition to the people of Liverpool, Lancashire, Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire for the fortitude that they have demonstrated, are demonstrating and will demonstrate.
The evidence shows that the most successful countries in combating covid-19 are those that have adopted localised measures to protect their populations. That is why we launched the three covid alert levels for England based on the prevalence of the virus in those areas. Although it is vital that we take decisive action to control the virus where it is surging, as we did yesterday in Manchester, we must also recognise that covid-19 is spreading in different ways and at different speeds across the country.
Covid-19 is a virus that we do not fully understand in epidemiological terms, or indeed in medical terms, but we know enough to say that the epidemiological evidence simply does not justify introducing a national circuit breaker. The costs of such an approach would be absolutely huge.
I vigorously support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes), who said that there were weaknesses in the Welsh Government’s decision to impose a circuit breaker because it would put tremendous strain on areas where there had been no great upsurge in the virus. That point was also made by the former Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns). It falls in fact into the category of being unnecessarily damaging to the economic fabric of our country.
The idea that the Welsh Government have done that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South put it, without adequate scrutiny, is a sharp contrast to here where the Opposition have been vigorous in holding the Government to account, and rightly so. Having said that, it is important to say, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said last week, that these are not virtual costs: every day that a national lockdown was in place would bring very real costs in jobs lost, businesses closed and children’s education harmed. The costs can be measured and weighed in permanent damage to the economy, which in turn undermines our ability to fund our public services.
Let me briefly remind the House of what we are doing to support, in a broad, deep and consistent way, areas that face higher restrictions. We are helping businesses with fixed costs such as rents and bills through a new business grant scheme. We are supporting local authorities in tier 2 or 3 with significant new funding. We have introduced a national funding formula of £1 per head in tier 1 areas with a high incidence, going up to £3 and £8. Of course, that is just a covid-outbreak-combat measure —it is dedicated to a small part of a much wider pattern of programmes of support totalling, as the House will know, more than £200 billion in total. To give the House a sense of scale, that means that areas in high or very high alert are receiving, or will receive, up to half a billion pounds just focused on public health activities to do with combating the virus, such as local enforcement and contact tracing. That comes on top of the £6 billion that we have already provided to local authorities since the start of the crisis.
The third element is extra support for local authorities in tier 3—
Jesse Norman
I would but I have been given so little time and have so much material to get through. I hope the hon. Gentleman does not mind if I press on.
As the House will know, we have provided one-off grants to Lancashire and Liverpool and will continue to do so for other authorities. Finally, we are expanding the job support scheme: businesses that have been legally required to close, whether in tier 3 areas or elsewhere, will be able to claim a direct wage subsidy.
Let me say a couple of things on the issue more widely before I finish. The hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) quite rightly said at the outset of this pandemic that it would be, in her words, “completely inappropriate” to engage in party politics on these desperately important issues of human life and human wellbeing. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said that we should not be having “political games”. I am afraid that an awful lot of what we have seen in the past 48 hours has been political games and party politics. It is a terrible, terrible shame.
Love Manchester though I do, I am afraid there is no reason why it should be treated as a special case and any differently from any other part of the country. Every country faces the potential of being struck down by covid and every part of this country should be supported in a proper way that is consistent across the piece. When the Mayor of Birmingham says, by contrast, that he will not put lives at risk, we have to recognise the sincerity and importance of his view.
Let me pick up a couple of other points that have been made. The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) spoke of Abraham Lincoln; she may also remember that Lincoln said that the gentleman he spoke of compressed the smallest amount of thought into the largest number of words. I am afraid we have seen a bit of that today.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) called for rationality and a truly national strategy; that is exactly what we are offering. That is what the Government are giving to her.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) was absolutely right to highlight the danger of theatrics and the importance of our not making this a north-south issue. It is absolutely not that. This is an issue in respect of which we are all desperately concerned to do the same thing: to protect people’s livelihoods, to protect their health and to protect the fabric of our economy and our society. What is the Labour alternative? A national firebreak? A circuit break? We should do everything that we possibly can to avoid that because of the unfairness of striking down areas that do not have high virus levels and suppressing their businesses. We all recognise the economic costs associated with that.
I do not think it is consistent with the Labour party’s commitment to avoid party politics to have descriptions from the Opposition Benches of, in one phrase, “screwing people over” heard in this Chamber, or, indeed, to hear references to a Member of this Chamber as scum from the Labour Front Bench.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As Mancunians, we agree that being fair is most important, after being proud of who we are and where we come from. Is it in order for a senior member of the Labour Front Bench, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), to call out repeatedly “scum” when my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) was talking, and then fail to retract it or apologise? Today, she has shamed Manchester and shamed this House. She should apologise.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of the point of order. I understand that she informed the office of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne that she was making that point of order. That is always important, by the way. The Chairman of Ways and Means dealt with this matter when the exchange to which the hon. Lady refers occurred. I will, therefore, not revisit it, but I remind hon. Members that they should use appropriate language in their contributions in the Chamber and in any sedentary contributions. I also remind the House of the words in “Erskine May”:
“Good temper and moderation are characteristics of parliamentary language.”
I was only in the chair for 45 minutes of the last debate, and I heard terminology and language that made me wince. I did not intervene then, but I will next time.
I am not going to suspend the House now, because the Dispatch Boxes were sanitised during the Division. To save time and so that at least one more Member may speak, we will move straight on to the next debate.
Free School Meals
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 261 / Noes: 322 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to continue directly funding provision of free school meals over the school holidays until Easter 2021 to prevent over a million children going hungry during this crisis.
I am very pleased to open today’s debate on such an important motion on behalf of children across the country who are at risk of going hungry and of all the families worried that their children will be hungry over the school holidays.
The truth is that we should not be having this debate at all. In the summer, when this issue was debated in this House, the Government saw sense, did the right thing and ensured that no child would go hungry over the summer holidays. This time, however, despite many families facing even more challenging circumstances now than they did four months ago, shamefully the Government are walking away from their obligation to hungry children. In their hearts, hon. Members on the Government Benches who rightly supported the extension of free school meals over the summer holidays know that. They will also know that the thousands of families who rely on free school meals to help them to make ends meet will watch with great interest how they vote this evening. I am aware that there are some right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches who are indicating that they will vote in favour of this motion. I commend them for setting party politics aside and I hope that by the end of this evening many more of their colleagues will join them.
More than 1.4 million children benefit from free school meals. Nearly 900,000 eligible children live in areas now subject to tier 2 and tier 3 covid restrictions. Their families face an upcoming furlough cliff-edge, an inadequate replacement system and the deep fear of growing unemployment. So the question for Members on the Government Benches is simple: are they absolutely confident that support is adequate and that no child in their constituencies will go hungry?
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady consider this to be a temporary measure while the covid crisis continues or a permanent measure that would be on the statute book indefinitely?
Kate Green
I am grateful to the hon. Member. Initially, I would suggest that we urgently need a measure that will take us through this half term and the remainder of this academic year. We understand that nobody can predict how the virus might progress over the coming months, but it is crystal clear that what we need to vote for tonight is an urgent emergency measure to protect children and families who are struggling.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene in the midst of her excellent oration. There are 3,891 children in Slough who are known to require free school meals. Does she agree that if feeding those children over the summer was the right and humane thing to do in the middle of a pandemic, surely it is right and honourable to feed them over the winter when their parents are struggling to put food on the table and more than 1 million children could potentially go hungry? Or does she think that the Prime Minister has merely changed his priorities once again?
Kate Green
My hon. Friend makes a very reasonable point, and he is right to draw attention to the Prime Minister’s view on this matter, because Downing Street said just the other day:
“It’s not for schools to provide food to pupils during the school holidays.”
I cannot believe I have to spell this out: it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that children do not go hungry, and they do not stop being hungry just because the school bell rings for the end of term. Surely our constituents send us to this place as Members of Parliament to vote to ensure that the children who most need our help at any time of year are protected.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making a passionate and thought-through speech. Does she agree that the holiday periods are always a difficulty—whether or not there is a pandemic—for those children from families on free school meals? They always need that support, and that should be something we are doing irrespective of the pandemic. In my constituency, 40% of the entire workforce are on furlough. The cliff edge is coming in a few days’ time, when the number of people desperate for support will increase massively. Is it not therefore right that we take action today?
Kate Green
That is right. The debate this evening is urgent. Let me say to Members on the Government Benches: please put party politics aside tonight and for the sake of our children vote to extend free school meals. After all, since the summer holidays, exactly as we have just heard, the situation has got worse and more desperate for millions of families.
While the provision of free school meals is being closed, the gravy train is still open for business—with £7,000 a day for consultants working on a test and trace system that does not work, £130 million to a Conservative party donor for unsafe covid testing kits, £160 million of profits for Serco and an increased dividend for its shareholders, because the Government threw good money after bad on a test and trace contract that is robbing the public. Yesterday, a Business Minister said that extending free school meals was not as simple as writing a cheque, but why is it that the money only runs out when it is hungry children who need it?
I am surprised there is not greater recognition on the Government Benches that families across the country are finding it very difficult to manage. It was, after all, only a matter of weeks ago that national newspapers were full of briefings from friends of the Prime Minister reporting anxiety about how he had to provide for his family. He had a new baby and, with the loss of his lucrative newspaper columns, his friends said it was a strain to manage on his £150,000 salary as Prime Minister.
It is frankly contemptible that the kind of concern we read in the national newspapers for the Prime Minister’s finances is not extended to the millions across this country who are genuinely struggling. Imagine being a parent of one of the more than 3,000 children in the Prime Minister’s constituency who benefits from free school meals. To read one week about how hard it is to make ends meet on £150,000 a year and then to see the provision of a free meal for your child taken away a few days later is utterly inexplicable.
The fact that we need to have this debate is a sign of repeated failures on the part of the Government—a failure of compassion, a failure of competence, not recognising the challenges that parents face and not giving them the support they need to provide for their children.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
There are roughly 14 million people living in relative poverty this year. In 2000, there were roughly 14 million people living in relative poverty. Why were Labour not able to fix the problems of relative poverty when they were in power?
Kate Green
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like me to enlighten him on the poverty figures during Labour’s period in office. In 2010-11, there were 3.5 million children living in relative poverty. Today, the figure after housing costs is 4.2 million. I would advise him to be very careful about quoting child poverty figures to Labour Members.
We have a failure of leadership today—a failure to be clear and unequivocal. No child should go hungry in one of the world’s richest countries, but where the Government have failed to show leadership, many others have stepped up to do the right thing. As the Member of Parliament for Old Trafford, I am very proud to pay tribute to Marcus Rashford. I congratulate him on his late winning goal last night and I hope that he will score another late victory today when we vote on Labour’s motion. I congratulate and thank the many others across the country who are acting and campaigning to end child poverty and food poverty.
Kate Green
If the hon. Member will forgive me, no—I will make progress and let others in.
It gives me huge pride to see people come together and take action where the Government are failing to do so. Co-operative schools are already committing to providing free school meals over the holidays. That represents the very best of the co-op movement—a movement built on support for one another, on people helping their neighbours in their community and doing what is right for the most disadvantaged. Will the Secretary of State follow their example?
Colleagues in the Welsh Labour Government, in Northern Ireland and in some parts of Scotland have already committed to providing free school meals over the holidays until Easter. Again, I ask: will the Secretary of State follow their example? Catering staff across our schools have worked flat out to fulfil their essential role in providing free school meals. They are among the many low-paid workers we have learned to depend on during the pandemic, but many feel that their jobs and livelihoods are at risk. Will the Secretary of State tell us what steps are being taken to protect and support the jobs of school catering staff and others who deliver this support to our children?
Before the pandemic, there were over 4 million children growing up in poverty. In the months ahead, that will only increase. Child poverty is a pandemic of its own. It is a pandemic that reflects the great evils still haunting our society—a society blighted by wages that are not enough for working families to make ends meet, a housing crisis that creates insecurity and a social security system cut to ribbons by the Conservative party.
I recognise today’s proposals are not a silver bullet, and they will not end child poverty. They are a sticking plaster, but one that is badly and urgently needed—needed by the 1.4 million children who could go hungry without them and by families worried about putting food on the table—so will the Secretary of State do what is right and take this first small step to ensure that over a million children do not go hungry this Christmas?
As I said at the outset, the Government should never have let things get this far. They still do not have to. The Secretary of State can stand up now and do the right thing. He can listen to Labour, to campaigners and to families across the country, withdraw his amendment and support our motion. Sadly, I do not think he will do so. Yet months ago, Marcus Rashford asked the question that started this debate and that saw the Government extend free school meals over the summer. Today I ask—[Interruption.] Oh, don’t be silly! The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) knows perfectly well that the one thing I am not is frit. Today I ask the Secretary of State the same simple question: can we all agree that no child should go to bed hungry? I commend our motion to the House.
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“notes that schools are now fully operational following the covid-19 outbreak, and will continue to offer free school meals in term time; welcomes the substantial support provided by the Government to children worth £550 million annually; further welcomes that this support has been bolstered by almost £53 billion worth of income protection schemes, and £9.3 billion of additional welfare payments; notes that eligible families have also been supported throughout lockdown through the receipt of meal vouchers worth £380 million while schools were partially closed, alongside the Holiday Activities and Food Fund; and further supports the Government in its ongoing activities to help the most vulnerable children in society.”
As we all know, this is a unique and hugely challenging period that our nation faces. We understand the profound impact that the pandemic has had on people’s lives. Supporting those on lower incomes and vulnerable families is very much at the heart of the Government’s response. I recognise and understand the strength of feeling around this issue, both within this House and more widely. I would like to take this opportunity to outline the significant steps that we have taken to support children during the pandemic and the package of support available from the Government for families who might otherwise be facing hardship.
As my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer have both made clear throughout this period, the Government will continue to support people affected by coronavirus. We have taken unprecedented action to support families and jobs, as we take measures to tackle this virus. That is why we have undertaken the most radical overhaul of our welfare system since Beveridge, by introducing universal credit, ensuring that work pays for everyone. If we had not taken those bold actions—actions that were opposed by Labour at every single stage—this country would not have been in a position to support those families and individuals, who are most vulnerable in society.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
May I take the Secretary of State back to children and schools? As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) has outlined, schools are anchors in the community. School leaders are already overburdened by much of what they are having to do, but they are already doing much of it. This week I visited FareShare South West in Bristol, which reaches out and uses community anchors to feed children and families. We have a golden opportunity to use schools as community anchors. The Secretary of State needs to see this differently and do that, and also include nurseries and children’s centres—the anchors for families. He needs to reconsider.
Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting another Government initiative—FareShare receives considerable support from the Government, as do such schemes as Magic Breakfast, in recognition of the important role that the voluntary sector plays in provision and support for schools and children. Let me also take this opportunity to thank not just the teachers and support staff in her constituency, but those in all our constituencies, who have done an amazing job in ensuring, despite opposition from Labour on numerous occasions, that every school has the opportunity to open and that children can go back, as we have been able to do so.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
As my predecessor as candidate in Blackpool North and Fleetwood, my right hon. Friend will know that I have some 6,000 pupils reliant on free school meals in my constituency, and I am deeply disappointed by the decision that has been taken at the moment. Will he commit to pushing in the comprehensive spending review for a much more strategic approach that rolls out the school holiday activity fund nationwide—a universal approach to tackling child poverty that does not just stigmatise those on free school meals?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend raises a really important point, which I was going to come to, about the important role that the holiday activities and food programme has played in making a real difference for children. This debate should not be just about food; we have to look at different ways that we can support children and families. Children, often from the most deprived backgrounds, are sometimes in a situation over the long summer period of not being able to have the level of support that we would like to see all children benefit from, and we should look at how we can roll out that programme more into the future. It has been very successful in the previous two years and we would like to see how we can do more in the future.
Gavin Williamson
I am looking forward with enthusiasm to turning to the hon. Gentleman, but let me just finish addressing the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard).
As my hon. Friend will know, we have invested a considerable amount of money in the opportunity areas, which are looking at some of the real long-term challenges that we have in Blackpool as well as in 12 other areas right around the country.[Official Report, 3 November 2020, Vol. 683, c. 4MC.] I would be very happy to sit down with him to see how we can link up what we are doing with the Blackpool opportunity area, and the progress that we are making on that, in addressing some of the concerns that I know he has.
Let me make just a little more progress, and then I will hand over to the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who I know is keen to get in. I was talking about universal credit and how it has been such an important part of our response to the covid crisis. If we had not had universal credit in place, the job of the Department for Work and Pensions and the whole of Government would have been so much more challenging in being able support everyone in this country. By tapering benefits and providing work allowances to those facing the greatest barriers to work, we ensure that people are always better off in work. Something that is often forgotten is the number of barriers that we inherited and had to deal with when we came to power back in 2010, as a result of the legacy of the last Labour Government.
That is why between 2015-16 and 2019-20, we have taken 1.7 million people out of tax. Yes, we on the Government side of the House believe that tax cuts are good, and they benefit the poorest in society by taking them out of tax. We provided approximately 32 million people with a tax cut by raising the personal tax allowance to £12,500. I personally, and I think a lot of Government Members, think that helping 32 million people is a good thing.
Mr Dhesi
I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words and for allowing me to intervene. Food bank usage is predicted to be 61% higher this coming winter than it was last winter. That is a mere prediction. It will take a lot more than free school meals to sort out this poverty crisis, but does the Secretary of State agree that that is the least we can do to help support struggling families?
Gavin Williamson
I know that the hon. Gentleman is a man who has great passion and belief on the subject of education and how we support the most vulnerable people in society, and he raises an important point about how we can support those people. Our view is, clearly, that the best way of doing that is through the universal credit system and ensuring that we have a welfare system that works for everyone in this country.
As I touched on, we have raised the personal tax allowance to £12,500 to ensure that those on the lowest incomes benefit, and at the same time we have raised the adult national living wage to £8.72, up from the adult national minimum wage of £5.80 at the start of 2010.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I very much welcome the support being given to poorer families, but the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs looked at covid and the food supply, and there is no doubt that it is hugely challenging for the poorest in society to get food at the moment. Does the Secretary of State accept that some of these families are very challenged, and that if we give them money, it does not necessarily get to food for children—[Interruption.] No, it does not. Therefore, I think school meal vouchers are a good way of getting food out to those families that really need it, so will he re-look at meal vouchers for Christmas?
Gavin Williamson
That is what is so incredibly important about our free school meals programme, which originally came into existence in 1906 and has evolved considerably since. The programme has the raised the standards of what children receive and has expanded to support so many others. It is an important part of what we deliver. I will touch on that later in my speech.
Gavin Williamson
I know that the hon. Lady is eager to intervene—I am sure that it is an interchangeable point that she can probably make at any time in my speech. If I could make some progress, I will give way to her later.
Since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, we have been prioritising supporting jobs. We are helping employees to get back into work with an £1,000 bonus for employers if they keep on a member of staff. We are doubling the number of frontline work coaches, and putting in place a new job support scheme to protect jobs and businesses that are facing lower demand over the winter due to coronavirus. We are determined to build back better, which is why we have introduced a £30 billion plan for jobs, including the £2 billion kickstart scheme to help 250,000 16 to 24-year-olds on universal credit to get a foot on the jobs ladder.
Gavin Williamson
I am going to give way to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) before the hon. Lady, but first I will make just a little bit more progress.
In this unprecedented time, the Government are proud to have injected £9 billion into the welfare system, because we on this side of the House recognised that action needed to be taken to protect and support those who are most vulnerable. That support has been targeted at those on low incomes, and includes increasing universal credit and working tax credit by up to £1,040 for this financial year, which benefits more than 4 million households. We have also provided an additional £63 million in welfare assistance funding for local authorities to support families with urgent needs, including over the October half-term.
Munira Wilson
I was not going to make an inter- changeable point; I actually wanted to pick up on a point that the Secretary of State made earlier in his speech about raising the income tax personal allowance. Given that he is making such a passionate defence of what was a Liberal Democrat policy in the coalition Government, perhaps he might follow another Liberal Democrat policy—that of the Education Minister in Wales, Kirsty Williams, who has extended free school meals until April next year—so that some 2,000 children in my constituency of Twickenham will not go hungry in the holidays this winter.
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady will probably remember that it was a coalition Government that the Liberal Democrats were part of. We are proud that the UK Government have provided free school meals to those who have needed them for over a century. They are an essential part of our education system, supporting 1.4 million students from the lowest-income families to learn and to achieve in the classroom.
This Government have always recognised the importance of free school meals. That is why it was the Conservatives, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats—the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) may want to intervene at this point—who, in September 2014, extended free school meals to disadvantaged further education students for the first time ever. Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, schools have continued to receive their expected funding to cover both free school meals and universal infant free school meals.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I was not going to make that point, but it was actually another example of a policy that you guys definitely did oppose, and which we managed to persuade you to do. But that is not my point.
My point is about support for children, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds, when it comes to their learning. It is clear that young people who have no access to learning technology at home fall further behind than those who do have access to wi-fi, laptops and larger screens. There are 2,300 children living in poverty—below the poverty line—in my constituency, yet only 116 PCs were delivered to support them. Should not the Secretary of State look at that provision again, so that people from poorer backgrounds do not fall further behind at school?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about learning for children. He has the privilege of representing a beautiful and rural part of the world, and he know some of the challenges that come with that. Beauty can often disguise some of the poverty that sits behind it, and he is right to mention some of the challenges around how we support schools. We have extended the laptop scheme, making more available. In total, close to 500,000 laptops will be made available for schools, and we continue to work with the sector to do everything we can to support schools in the delivery of remote education.
Gavin Williamson
I will give way to my hon. Friend, but I hope Members will forgive me if I then make some progress.
Kevin Hollinrake
These are obviously exceptional times, but temporary solutions tend to become permanent. By the way, it was not me who called the shadow Secretary of State “frit”—I wanted to clear that up. If Opposition Members are suggesting a permanent right to free school meals during the holidays, why did they not introduce such a provision during their many years in power? Should we have an honest conversation with the public about whether such a measure would require raising taxes to pay for that increased welfare?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend raises important points about what is temporary and what is permanent. Indeed, there seems to be some disagreement here, because the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) seems to be moving away from the motion that she tabled. I was a little confused about whether she was developing her policy at the Dispatch Box, or whether her policy is stated in the motion.
There are real challenges around youngsters and tackling poverty, and Conservative Members are intent on ensuring that we put in place actions to deal with those issues, and that families, children, and individuals get the support they need. The best way to do that is through the welfare system; the best way to do that is by supporting people into work, as that is always the best route out of poverty.
Gavin Williamson
I will make some progress, and then I will give way to the hon. Lady. In March we took the unprecedented step of asking schools to close to all but a very small number of children. Given that children were expected to study from home in such an unexpected manner, we took swift and decisive action, and invested significant funding to ensure that we could continue free school meal provision for eligible children. We also, temporarily, extended eligibility for free school meals to children from families with no recourse to public funds—an arrangement that we have extended into the autumn term while we undertake a review. It is right that such extraordinary measures were put in place at the start of the pandemic.
Now that pupils are back in schools, kitchens are open once again to provide healthy, nutritious meals to all children—including those eligible for free school meals—aiding their academic performance, and supporting attendance and engagement. We have also set out in guidance information for schools and caterers to support free school meal pupils who are self-isolating, through the provision of food parcels to those children.
Kate Green
I simply wanted to ask the Secretary of State, in the context of what he was saying about his party’s determination to reduce child poverty, whether he agrees with his colleague who, today at lunchtime on the BBC, said that there have always been hungry children, as if that were somehow a reason not to take action.
Gavin Williamson
I think it is fair to say that Members on both sides of the House are united in their commitment to drive out poverty and to make sure that children do not go hungry. We will do everything we can to support families and help them to do well and to succeed, and to provide them with a world-class education system driving up standards. That is what drives Conservative Members and always will.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The Secretary of State has been incredibly generous with interventions, but there are 43 Members on the call list and we would like to get them in. There will be time limits, by the way, so please keep that in mind.
David Simmonds
Was the Secretary of State moved, as I was, by The Times “Red Box” article that Marcus Rashford wrote? Did he find it quite striking that the anxiety and difficulties that he described in growing up, with his mum’s worry about feeding the children, took place entirely under a Labour Government who claimed that eradicating child poverty was their front and central policy?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend points out that this is a challenge that both parties face. There is a sense of commitment on the Conservative Benches to make a real and long-lasting difference to this, and that is what we will do.
We have sent out our guidance information to schools about how they can be supporting children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. We understand how important this is. It is a continued focus of this Government and always will be. Schools are an integral part of our local communities. However, free school meals have only ever been intended to provide support during term-time periods while children are engaging in activity and learning. The provision of a healthy school meal helps children to concentrate and learn, as most recently evidenced by the pilot programme in 2012 that led to the introduction of universal infant free school meals in 2014. This complements a wider range of Government support that responds more directly to the challenges faced by families on lower incomes, and is further supplemented by the additional support in place as a direct result of the pandemic.
Gavin Williamson
I do apologise, but Mr Deputy Speaker has been quite clear about wanting me to make progress, and I would best do so.
During the unprecedented and unpredictable period at the start of the pandemic, it was right that extra measures were taken to provide free school meals during the holidays, but we are in a different position now that we have welcomed all pupils back to school. We know that the long summer break is the time when families most welcome support, and when children will most benefit from engaging activities so that they are ready to learn when they return to school in September. For the past three years, we have supported disadvantaged children with free healthy meals and enriching activities through our holiday activities and food programme. This summer, the £9 million holiday activities and food programme supported about 50,000 children across 17 different local authority areas. We have also provided £63 million in welfare assistance funding to local authorities to support families with urgent needs. This funding was passed to councils in July to provide local access to funding for those who need support, including families facing financial challenge.
Education is the No. 1 route to opportunity and prosperity. We invest more in the education of disadvantaged children to give them the very best chance in life, both through the weighted national funding formula and the £2.4 billion annual pupil premium. We have invested £1 billion in the covid catch-up fund, including investing in the national tutoring programme, which will offer high-quality small-group tutoring to disadvantaged pupils who have fallen furthest behind. We are equally determined to encourage the continuation of high-quality childcare, which helps parents to work and is a critical building block in children’s development. We are proud that since 2013 the proportion of children achieving a good level of development at the end of reception year has gone from one in two to nearly three out of four.
However, we recognise that these are unprecedented and difficult times for some families, and that is why the Government have significantly strengthened the welfare net. We have put in place additional welfare measures worth around £9 billion in this financial year, including increasing universal credit and working tax credit by up to £1,040 for this financial year, benefiting more than 4 million households. These welfare measures sit alongside our extensive support package, including the income protection schemes that have so far protected 12 million jobs at a cost of almost £53 billion for England alone. This is one of the most significant interventions by any Government in the western world. We recognise how important it is to protect not only jobs but families, and that is why we have taken these interventions. Taken together, it is clear that the Government have taken significant and unprecedented action to support children and families at risk of hardship during this period.
Free school meals are, and always have been, about supporting children with a meal to help them to learn when they are at school or, indeed, currently at home learning. However, it is our support through universal credit and our comprehensive welfare system that supports families. I have outlined a significant series of actions from across Government to support families who may otherwise struggle in the light of a pandemic, including £9 billion in welfare, £53 billion for job support measures, £63 million for local authorities to help those with urgent needs and £350 million to help the most disadvantaged students to catch up at school. Those are just a few things that this Government have put in place to support those who are most disadvantaged. They represent a direct financial response to the pandemic and demonstrate that the Government are doing everything possible to support those who need help. I encourage Members from across the House to support the Government as we tackle this pandemic and the impact it has on people across society, and I commend our amendment to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Brendan O’Hara, I should like to inform the House that the time limit will be five minutes for the Chairman of the Education Committee and four minutes thereafter.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate this afternoon and to give the full support of the Scottish National party to this Opposition motion. We very much welcome this debate, particularly as just yesterday the Scottish Government announced a £10 million package of funding for local authorities to continue providing free school meals over the forthcoming school holidays, up to and including the Easter break of 2021. The Scottish Government did that, quite simply, because in the middle of a global pandemic and with an economic crisis looming, that was the right thing to do. As the Cabinet Secretary for Social Security, Shirley-Anne Somerville, said:
“We are doing all we can to ensure the right support gets to the right people at the right time in the right way”.
Part of getting the right support to the right people in the right way at the right time involves ensuring that those who are most exposed to the economic consequences of the pandemic know that their children will still at least have one hot meal every day, even if it is during the school holidays. I agree with the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) that it is remarkable that, in the 21st century, at a time like this, in one of the richest countries in the world, we are even having to debate this or to ask the Government to fund free school meals over the school holiday period to prevent 1.5 million of the poorest and most vulnerable children in England from going hungry.
I, too, would like to pay tribute to the work done by Marcus Rashford to shine a light on this issue. As a hugely successful young professional athlete, it would have been so easy for him not to have done what he has, but it is a measure of him as a person that he has not forgotten where he came from and the struggle that his family and others had to endure every day growing up. In his public petition, he is asking the Government to keep going with the free school meal programme that was put in place over the summer holidays and did so much to help children from low-income families, who have been hardest hit by the pandemic. It is not a huge ask, but it has struck a chord across these islands, including several hundred of my constituents in Argyll and Bute, who, although not directly affected by this, have been struck by the sincerity and compassion of this young man.
Sadly, that compassion was not replicated in the Government’s response to the petition reaching 300,000 signatures. Their spokesperson said:
“It’s not for schools to regularly provide food to pupils during the school holidays. We believe the best way to support families outside of term time is through Universal Credit rather than government subsidising meals.”
Of course, they said that when the Government had just announced that they were taking the £20 universal credit uplift away. That particularly dismissive, not to say callous, response exposes just how hollow the Chancellor’s promise was back in the summer to do “whatever it takes” to help people through this crisis. As we head into what will certainly be very difficult times this winter, with coronavirus cases on the rise, prompting fears of a second wave, taking away food from under- privileged children seems a perverse way of doing whatever it takes to help. Bizarrely, that same UK Government spokesperson said of the summer holiday school meal scheme:
“This is a specific measure to reflect the unique circumstances of the pandemic”
as if we had somehow come through it all, the pandemic had gone and everything had returned to normal. Is that really what the Government wanted to say? Is that the message that they wanted to get out? If so, it is palpable nonsense, as any health professional, self-employed worker, hospitality business owner, seasonal worker or someone who is about to lose their furlough will confirm—as will the parent and carer of every poor child in England whose income has fallen and are now reliant on food banks and for whom a free school meal had become almost a daily necessity.
This is a political choice. There is no doubt that if this Government prioritised eradicating poverty, the money would be found in an instant, because poverty is not accidental. It is not inevitable. It is a political choice. Poverty is not something that happens by accident. Children going hungry in a country as rich as this is a consequence—a direct consequence—of political choices. A decade of austerity in which the poorest and weakest in our society were forced to carry the can and bear the brunt of a financial crisis that had nothing to do with them was a political choice, and so too is the decision to take away poor children’s food during an economic and health crisis. It is staggering.
Wera Hobhouse
I was going to ask the Secretary of State this. We all know how important healthy eating is—not just food on the table but healthy food on the table. During the covid crisis, the Government suspended the fruit and veg scheme, and it was only reinstated after some serious campaigning by the organisation Sustain. Does the hon. Member agree with me and Sustain that the fruit and veg scheme should be extended to all primary school children, so that they have the benefit of it?
Brendan O’Hara
That is not really a question for me—I am not and never would aspire to be the Secretary of State for Education—but I take on board the hon. Member’s point, because it is about political choices. That is why I am so pleased that the Scottish Government have chosen to use the limited powers they have to support 156,000 of our children and young people by committing £10 million to ensure that those children who need it will continue to get a free school meal during this holiday and every holiday up to Easter 2021. In addition, the Scottish Government have announced £20 million of funding to be made available to local councils to help tackle financial insecurity. That funding will be sufficiently flexible for councils to be able to provide support to people who, shamefully, have no recourse to public funds and would otherwise be destitute and have no access to mainstream benefits.
Of course child poverty still exists in Scotland; no one could or would deny it. But the difference between what the UK Government are doing and what the SNP is doing in Holyrood is that the Scottish Government are doing what they can, with limited powers, to alleviate the worst effects of the Government’s policies, to try to improve the lives of Scotland’s poorest children. That was recognised by both the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty, who praised the Scottish Government for using what he described as their
“newly devolved powers to establish a promising social security system guided by the principles of dignity”.
Included in that new security system is the Scottish child payment, which will pay the equivalent of £10 a week per child to families with eligible children who are currently in receipt of low-income benefit. From November, the fund will be open to families with children under the age of six, recognising that, of all children in poverty, almost 60% live in a family where a child is under six years old. Although there is no cap to the number of children per family, it means, for a family with two children under six, £1,040 a year extra in their pockets. That is expected to alleviate the worst excesses of poverty for 194,000 children, and it is a significant investment by the Scottish Government.
I understand that the Government intend to vote against the motion tonight. I hope the Whips have done their arithmetic, because I understand that at least one group of Conservatives will be voting with the Opposition this evening—the Scottish Conservatives. It was less than a month ago that the new leader, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), declared that providing free school meals, breakfast and lunch to every primary school pupil in Scotland was to be his flagship policy in next year’s Scottish elections. He said:
“I have seen myself the difference that providing free meals can make. I just want to make sure no-one falls through the cracks and by giving this to all primary school pupils we can make sure the offer is there for everyone.”
Given his words, it is absolutely inconceivable that he and his colleagues would do anything other than vote for the motion tonight and provide the same level of support for the 1.5 million children in England who will benefit from school meals. That is why, despite being wholly devolved, we will be in the Lobby this evening alongside, I believe, every single Scottish MP when the House divides this evening.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It will be five minutes for the Chair of the Education Select Committee and four minutes thereafter.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Throughout the pandemic, the Secretary of State has acted significantly to support families in financial distress, and I thank both the Children’s Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), and the Minister with responsibility for universal credit, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), for the many discussions that I have had with them on these subjects.
The £20 a week uplift to universal credit and the £63 million for local authorities to provide families with emergency food and essential supplies has been a lifeline, but all the while that support has been in place, food insecurity has continued to rise. Between January and September 2020, the Harlow food bank gave out 118 tonnes of food—nearly double the tonnage of last year—and nationally, 32% of households have experienced a drop in income since late March. An estimated 1.9 million children have been affected by food insecurity in the same period, according to the Food Foundation, and 2% of adults said they had skipped meals entirely. That is only set to continue.
Neil Parish
My right hon. Friend is quite right about food insecurity, because that is exactly what the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report found. Does he agree that, if a sugar tax were implemented, raising £300 million, it would cost about £20 million per week to support free school meals? Surely it would be money well spent. I believe that the sugar tax was meant for helping poor people to get food.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I will come to that later. I am asking not for huge amounts of new money from the Treasury, but for the redistribution of the proceeds of the existing sugar tax, which disproportionately hits those on low incomes, back to those on lower incomes through free school meals and food programmes.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast a 13.2% rise in unemployment, meaning that 336,500 more working adults could face food insecurity. Now is the time for a long-term plan on combating food hunger from the Government, rather than a series of patchwork solutions.
First, I urge the Government to collect and publish proper data on child food insecurity. The most recent DFE estimate of the number of children eligible for free school meals, provided to me in a recent letter from the Children’s Minister, is 1.4 million. The figures are from January 2020, and we know that since then the world has been turned on its head. The Food Foundation suggests that the figure is now more like 2.2 million children, with 900,000 newly registered.
To the Government’s credit, there are a number of schemes to relieve food hunger, but what is being done to ensure that they are working? In September, for example, just 47.3% of eligible mothers were receiving healthy start vouchers, and those uptake figures are in decline. Much more could be done to boost awareness of those schemes, digitise healthy start vouchers and ensure that all those eligible for free school meals are registered quickly.
Secondly, free school meals should be extended over the school holidays temporarily for as long as the big effects of the pandemic continue to be felt. I would only support that temporarily. If we acknowledge that children risk going hungry in term time by providing them with free school meals despite the provision of universal credit and the other things that have been mentioned by the Government, we know that they risk going hungry in the holidays too.
Thirdly, as the report by the House of Lords Select Committee on Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment, “Hungry for change: fixing the failures in food”, recommended, when calculating universal credit allowances, the Government must consider the cost of buying and preparing healthy, nutritious meals under its own Eatwell scheme. Fourthly, the Government should implement the private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on school breakfasts and give all disadvantaged schools the funding to provide a free school breakfast to children at risk of hunger. We know that that increases educational progress by two months, and average GCSE achievement goes up for those children who have a regular breakfast.
Fifthly, we need a programme of holiday activities not just over the summer, but over every school holiday, to offer academic catch-up, as well as mental health and wellbeing support. I have seen that work in my constituency of Harlow, with children getting fed. Of course, I understand there are significant financial constraints on the Treasury right now, but these proposals do not need new money. It is also time for prominent retailers, suppliers and manufacturers to take on a much bigger role and match fund Government investment in tackling child food insecurity. It is no good just ticking a virtue-signalling box on a taskforce—they should actually act. We should ring-fence the £340 million a year in revenue from the tax on sugary drinks to cover the cost of these proposals.
The sugar tax, as I mentioned, hits families on lower incomes. Why should we not redistribute the revenue to fund these policy proposals, helping those same families facing food insecurity? Kellogg’s has found that hunger in the classroom costs the English economy at least £5.2 million a year. All the evidence shows that if we feed children properly, we increase educational attainment and boost life chances. It is a no-brainer. I urge the Government to set out a serious long-term plan to combat childhood hunger, and—at least until we are over the coronavirus—keep free school meals going through the winter and Easter holidays.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
While I personally rather like the new artistic screen displays, I have been assured that technicians are on to it so that they do not distract too much. I call Paul Maynard with a four-minute limit.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
As I said earlier, with over 6,000 children eligible for free school meals in my constituency, tackling food poverty during the school holidays is more than important: it is the ultimate example in politics of where something must be done. That is very different from saying that anything should be done. We need to ensure that the right support reaches the right children and, most importantly, in the right manner to have the impact required.
I note the support that has already been provided, not least the £120 million extra spent over the critical summer holiday period. I note the £1,000 a year uplift in universal credit, as well as the £1 billion extra in local housing allowance. It is worth noting that eligibility for universal credit covers far more children than the much narrower eligibility for free school meals does, and that is supporting the financial resilience of many families in my constituency at a time of real and growing insecurity as tier 3 impacts my hospitality sector so devastatingly. It none the less remains a source of deep, deep personal regret that advantage has not been taken in the intervening period since we were here discussing this back before the summer for the Government to reach agreement across the whole of Government—not just within individual Departments—to take a decision that could have obviated the need for this debate. My view is that we need a national and universal summer holiday activity and food support stream to deal with the trials that have occurred. This would avoid any of the stigmatisation that I see in my constituency around eligibility for free school meals. It is essential that children retain a link with an outside body during the longer summer break when child neglect as well as food poverty increase. Such a scheme would also diminish the risk of them losing some of the learning that they have acquired during the academic year.
The policy chief of the Leader of the Opposition, Claire Ainsley, observed, in her previous role with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, that strong families able to withstand the shocks of personal change and external pressures such as job loss are vital. She was clear, as I am, that strong families matter. She also wants to see a return of a sense of agency and autonomy to the lives of some of the most disadvantaged in society—people who have had their ability to make choices about how their lives are structured taken away from them by systems that they have not designed. I am talking about choices that we here take for granted.
I am not convinced that the model on the Order Paper today is the right one. I am not sure that it returns that sense of agency and autonomy that I seek. Politics is not something that we do to people; it is something that we do with people. We need to make much more strategic use of Opposition day debates, rather than have the partisan squabbling that we tend to see. I have had 10 years here now. I have yet to see a single Opposition day debate illuminate an issue rather than obscure it further. I am not sure that it is the greatest use of the time that we have in this House—time that is very, very restricted these days.
For all that, the Government must move much more quickly to fill what has now become a policy vacuum and turn the thinking that I know is occurring within Departments into something much more concrete than they argue for—whether it be the spending review, the comprehensive spending review, the autumn fiscal event, or whatever season’s fiscal event it might be. The next time we have big announcements I have big hopes and expectations of what the Government will deliver.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
In 2010, the incoming Conservative Prime Minister promised to fix what he termed “broken Britain”. A decade later, we are having a debate about whether or not children go hungry next week and I have to run a food bank from my constituency office. When Labour left office, 40,000 were using food banks, last year it was 1.4 million people, 7,000 of whom were in Southwark, including hundreds of working people.
My constituency is at heart of London. It may be the capital city of the fifth wealthiest nation on the planet, but in some wards child poverty is as high as 40%. It was the coalition who scrapped the proper measurement of poverty and then scrapped the previous Labour Government’s statutory commitment to end child poverty by this year—by 2020. Today’s debate shows the impact of that downgrade of the need to tackle child poverty. It was not just a downgrade, but a direct exacerbation of the problem directly imposed by Government policies. The Secretary State waxed lyrical about universal credit with its perverse and catastrophic five-week delay, but the Government’s own statistics show that, this year, more than 200,000 people who applied for universal credit were paid after five weeks. A third of the applicants got nothing and others have been forced to take out a loan from the Department for Work and Pensions, totalling now almost £1 billion. People sought help, but all they were given was debt and no recourse to public funds, which was a condition imposed on some people, but which leaves children growing up without access to the same support as the kid they were born next to at St Thomas’s Hospital and sit next to at St Saviour’s school. The Children’s Society tells us that there are 175,000 children in that position. The Home Office refused to release the figure, even though the Prime Minister promised that he would. I ask Members to contrast that pernicious national Government approach of state-sponsored food poverty with a willingness to help elsewhere.
I am proud of the efforts of my local Labour council to tackle food poverty, providing free healthy school meals for all primary school children since 2011. There are 59 members of the Southwark Food Action Alliance, including the council and faith groups such as the Salvation Army, and even private companies such as Engie and British Land understand that there is a problem. There are also some great local charities such as the Central Southwark Community Hub under Felicia Boshorin’s brilliant leadership, which has fed 2,300 families since April alone, Time & Talents has an amazing team under Sarah Gibb and Pecan, the Southwark food bank, which, last year, fed more than 2,400 children.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about how the voluntary sector, individuals and local councils have stood up and filled the enormous gap left by the Government. I pay tribute to the Lunch Bunch in Woodley in my constituency of Reading East, to a range of other local charities, including Sadaka and Whitley Community Development Association, and to Reading Borough Council for its work. When will the Government stand up and play their part?
Neil Coyle
I am glad that my hon. Friend’s constituency has organisations like those in mine.
Organisations have popped up in response to covid, such as the mutual aid groups, and existing organisations such as Burgess Sports and Pembroke House have extended their activities to help feed families. They all deserve community gratitude, but they have worked so hard because the Government have created and then ignored the need for help—a Government headed by a man who apparently cries himself to sleep because he is now receiving only £150,000 a year. Well, boo hoo!
I want to end by talking about a real injustice. This year, children have largely, thankfully, escaped the worst health effects of covid, but they have not been spared the economic impact on their parents. In Bermondsey and Old Southwark, unemployment has jumped by 5,000, many parents are still prevented from working and we face the cliff edge of the end of the furlough scheme, which has helped 24,000 people in my constituency alone. Children feel the injustice of that situation. The Government have a genuine chance to act today—mindful, I hope, of the 300,000-and-growing signatures on Marcus Rashford’s petition.
I will finish by quoting Charles Dickens, who, of course, lived in Southwark. In the 1860s, he wrote “Great Expectations”, in which he said:
“In the little world in which children have their existence, there is nothing so finely perceived and so finely felt as injustice.”
It is injustice that we vote on today. MPs can allow an injustice to occur or we can vote to prevent an injustice from being done to children, through no fault of their own. I know how I will be voting—I will be voting to end injustice.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
Free school meals have been part of the education system for more than a century, and they are and have always been intended to be an additional support on school days in term time. Lockdown disrupted education in a way that we probably have not seen since the war. The lines between school, home and education became blurred and, in those extraordinary circumstances, it was right to temporarily amend the rules on school meal provision so that those who would have received a meal, had school been open in the usual way, did not miss out.
But as I understand it, this motion is proposing something entirely different: it does not extend the system, but changes the very basis on which support might be offered. Schools are now open and those in receipt of free school meals will receive one at school. Indeed, the proposal in the motion was rejected by the Labour Government when it was made in 2007. This change might be desirable; it could make a difference. But I suggest that any such proposal should be considered not on its own, but as part of wider efforts to combat poverty.
We are definitely facing a period of economic hardship, and the welfare system has rightly been strengthened. I welcome, for example, the cash injection of £9,000 million into our welfare system and I particularly welcome the increase by £858,000 to Nottinghamshire as its part of the local authority welfare assistance fund. I further welcome changes such as the national living wage and the raising of the income tax threshold so that those on the lowest incomes pay no income tax at all—policies of practical benefit to the poorest in society.
I am a little unclear about how the Opposition’s proposals will work in practice. Should schools be reopened at a time when they would normally be closed? Is there a desire among staff who have worked so hard recently to take on this additional responsibility? What will be the additional costs and who will pick them up?
I also hear from the Opposition Benches the name of Marcus Rashford being invoked. But according to his tweet of 18 October, Mr Rashford is calling for school meal provision in all holidays. Is it that the Opposition motion does not agree with Mr Rashford but is attempting to catch his coat tails or do the Opposition secretly agree with him but are too coy to say it at the moment?
There are big questions to answer when it comes to tackling poverty and I do not believe that changes should be made lightly. But I do accept that there is far more to do, including targeted interventions for those most in need. For the reasons I have given, I regret that I cannot support the motion in its unamended form today. The Labour party might believe that the motion scores a moral victory, but I believe that it fails to address many fundamental issues, and the responsibility for addressing those issues now falls to the Government side of the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am sure that colleagues can see from the call list that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, so after the next speaker I will reduce the time limit to three minutes.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
This debate is about priorities and it is about shame—the shame that, in the fifth richest country in the world, 30% of our children, which is 4.2 million of them, are living in poverty by the Government’s official statistics. Before the summer, Marcus Rashford publicly shamed the Government and won free school meals over the holidays. He spoke from the heart about his experience as a child when he was dependent on food banks.
The Prime Minister now says that it is not the role of schools to provide food during the holidays. Child hunger may not be a priority for him, but it is a priority for the headteachers of my schools in Brent who have emailed me in the past 24 hours with their heartfelt experiences. Perhaps they will shame the Prime Minister once again.
Rebecca Curtis, principal of ARK Elvin Academy, said:
“In Lockdown we had children calling the school explaining they were hungry and asking what we could do—as soon as we were able to issue the FSM vouchers we were flooded with thanks from our children and their parents. The situation with unemployment in Brent is clearly so much worse now so we are really concerned about how we can support our pupils through the half term and the Christmas holidays”.
James Simmons, the head of Oliver Goldsmith Primary School, observed:
“Families with multiple children were able to purchase food in bigger quantities to take advantage of offers. With stress for families trying to feed children greatly reduced, they described the access to FSM as a lifeline.”
Mrs Mistry at Sudbury Primary School said that she
“strongly believes that FSM should be provided,”
but cautioned that,
“The government needs to implement a scheme that is easily manageable by schools”.
Karen Giles, the head at Barham Primary School, made the point that,
“Many families have had their income cut by two thirds or more and many children are going hungry. Schools need Free School Meals to be directly funded and the criteria for eligibility should be less stringent.”
Mr Farrington, the head of the Village School, warned:
“There is very limited provision for pupils with disabilities over the holidays and we fear many won’t receive adequate food and support. We are also aware that parents, carers and families are putting themselves in more debt and that providing for their children has had a large impact on the mental health of our families.”
Finally, Raphael Moss, the head of Elsley Primary School, wrote that the
“government paying for FSM during holidays should be an absolute minimum. What is really needed is to widen the eligibility for children whose families are in receipt of Universal Credit as Marcus Rashford is campaigning for. At Elsley we had to set up a food bank to support some of our families. I cannot believe that as a Head teacher in London in 2020 I am overseeing a food bank to ensure that our children don’t go hungry. It is truly unbelievable.”
Well, it is truly unbelievable, but the Government have the opportunity to put it right.
It is not just about extending the voucher scheme, however. Today, five senior children’s charities published an analysis showing that even before coronavirus, local authorities were struggling to fund the need for children’s services. They say:
“Those in the most deprived communities have suffered the greatest reductions in spending power. Funding for services for the 20% most deprived Local Authorities has fallen more than twice as fast as for the least”.
My borough of Brent has lost £174 million since 2010.
A recent National Audit Office report on bounce back loans found that, to support business, the Government underwrote more than £36 billion of loans in the full knowledge and acceptance that between 30% and 60% of that would have to be written off as unrepayable or even fraudulent. That is between £11 billion and £20 billion of public money wasted, yet the Government baulk at spending another £10 million—million—on our children. This is about priorities and it is about shame. If those are the Minister’s priorities, he should be ashamed.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate, not just as the Member of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent Central or the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the national food strategy, but as someone who is disappointed and saddened by the divisive nature of the debate. There is no need for today’s point-scoring motion—a sticking plaster, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) called it—which will no doubt cause unnecessary concern for our constituents. A consensus exists between hon. Members on both sides of the House that one child hungry is one too many. Any suggestion that an hon. Member would think otherwise is deeply offensive.
The coronavirus restrictions introduced in March this year presented a challenge as the boundaries between our public services and our private lives became blurred. This Government rightly listened to public opinion and acted by extending the provision of free school meals over the summer holidays at a time when we were facing school closures. However, we are now in a very different position. With schools and classrooms now in session, it is only right that the exceptional measures introduced at the height of this pandemic come to an end. Instead, we must have a constructive debate considering the longer-term and most sustainable solutions to tackling this problem.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree with me that the very fact that we have reopened schools—99% of state schools are now open—shows just how committed this Government are to tackling child poverty, because saving our children’s education and catching children up where they have fallen behind is the No. 1 thing we can do to help bring people out of poverty?
Jo Gideon
I thank my hon. Friend, and I absolutely agree with what she says.
There is no question about it: there is a problem, but headlines do not help these children and their families, and the sticking plaster this motion calls for would be woefully inadequate. Before the pandemic, the Government commissioned an independent and comprehensive review of our entire food system from field to fork. The national food strategy review now being conducted is a top-to-bottom examination, and it will publish long-term and sustainable recommendations that will inform Government strategy on some of the biggest challenges to improving the health of our nation. As chairman of the APPG on the national food strategy, I am determined to work cross-party to develop support for more comprehensive, more fundamental and more long-term solutions. The work of the group will be integral to developing these proposals and it will help inform the White Paper. Addressing the issues of child obesity, malnutrition and food poverty is central to the levelling-up agenda. As with many aspects of the Government’s levelling-up agenda, outcomes cannot be delivered overnight.
Wera Hobhouse
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, because I think this is a very important issue and she is talking about cross-party support. The fruit and veg scheme is such an important scheme. Will she look at the campaign by Sustain of having a healthy piece of fruit or vegetable for every primary schoolchild in state education?
Jo Gideon
I thank the hon. Lady and, absolutely, we will be looking at this very broadly. That is the mandate and, quite frankly, I think that is what we should be talking about today.
As I was saying, addressing the issues of child obesity, malnutrition and food poverty is completely central to the agenda and it cannot be done overnight. I stood on a platform that a society is best judged by how it looks after its most vulnerable. This Government have shown throughout this pandemic that they are committed to supporting the most vulnerable in our society. The temporary and exceptional measure put in place at the height of this pandemic is not a sustainable solution. Rather than the Opposition bringing this same old question to the House every time we face a school holiday, they should work with us towards a long-term solution and a wraparound-support approach for low-income families.
For the reasons I have outlined, I will not be supporting this motion, but instead I call on those who truly wish to tackle the issue of food poverty long term to work with me in developing solutions for the benefit of those children and families we all seek to help.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. May I gently point out that taking interventions has now meant that one fewer person can speak who had put in to speak and who has been sitting here all afternoon? If colleagues want to take interventions, I suggest that they take them out of the three minutes that I have allocated, because taking five minutes means that somebody else is probably unlikely to get into the debate.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I want to agree with two things that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), said in her speech. The first is that no child should go hungry in this country. That is something that we all agree with in this House. The question is how we can ensure that outcome?
Before I was a Member of this House, I ran a charity working with children and families at risk, and I did a lot of work with schools, and I recognise that there is an important role for schools to facilitate social support for children and families. They can play an important role as a hub in the local community, as has been said, but it is not appropriate to make them a provider of welfare themselves. As we have heard from the shadow Secretary of State, there is a possibility of the proposal becoming permanent. That is not an appropriate use of schools. Now that schools are open again, it is not appropriate to make them welfare providers. That is a role for the welfare system. I pay tribute to the DWP and to the Ministers who have overseen universal credit. That system has been a great success, and without it we would be in a very serious way, That is the appropriate mechanism for delivering welfare to families.
More can be done and, of course, more is being done by the Government. We have seen a £20 a week uplift to universal credit, which will run through half-term, through Christmas and into next year. Free school meals are available for families with no recourse to public funds and, of course, extra money has been made available for local authorities to provide welfare to families, including £500,000 for my local authority in Wiltshire, which is very welcome. No doubt more can be done, and I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) in calling for a comprehensive strategy to support families and children during the school holidays. That is an absolutely pressing need, and we need to get it right.
My second point of agreement with the shadow Secretary of State is on putting aside party politics. She then went on to make one of the most partisan speeches I have heard in my short time in this House, with references to test and trace, consultants and even the Prime Minister’s personal finances, which is pretty unnecessary.
I will talk quickly about the motivation behind this debate and of Members in this House. I hope we can agree that rudeness of the sort we saw earlier from the Opposition Front Bench is completely unacceptable. I do not think robust language is unacceptable. It is quite appropriate to use robust language—we should not bleed these debates of any emotion—and it is completely acceptable and understandable if Opposition Members want to attack the Government on their competence. I do not agree, but it is fair enough to attack us on our judgment.
Obviously, mistakes get made, which is understandable; but to attack us on our motivation and our morality, as we repeatedly hear from Opposition Members, is completely unacceptable, because it demeans this House and the quality of debate. It does not serve the people of this country. I ask Opposition Members to desist from that, to keep the debate on policy and to stop the trolling they are engaged in at the moment.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Listening to all the contributions, it is clear we are all committed to ensuring that no child should go hungry, that no child should worry about when they are going to eat next and that children have the support and opportunities to succeed.
Even before covid-19 infected our lives, this Government’s support for children was significant: delivering a world-class education; ensuring children have the skills to succeed; and ensuring children have a nutritious lunchtime meal to support their learning, concentration and ability to achieve at school. The support during coronavirus has been unprecedented. The Government ensured that no child was left behind while schools were closed, by providing substantial additional funding to eligible families through the national voucher scheme.
The total amount of supermarket vouchers redeemed by families was over £380 million. Alongside the income-protection schemes, which have so far protected 12 million jobs, the Government have provided £63 million in welfare assistance funding to local authorities to support families with urgent needs.
I will take no lectures from a Labour party that wants a full national lockdown, which would be disastrous—a party that will not work collectively at a time of national crisis; a party that politicises a national crisis; a party that, in this great place, calls my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) scum; a party that itself, when in government, refused to extend free school meals into the holidays.
We are in danger of viewing everything through the lens of covid-19. We need to look beyond that. How we treat our most vulnerable reflects on all of us, as does ensuring that the ladder of opportunity is one that everyone can climb. We all have an important collective role in helping to address the underlying causes of child poverty. A rounded approach to tackling child poverty will take children from their earliest years through schooling to adolescence and adult life, and not just react when there is a crisis. Every family turned around means more children in school and more parents in work.
If there is a vote, as I am sure there will be, I will not be voting for a Labour motion that is just one more action by those intent on undermining and derailing the response to this national crisis with yet another strapline. Instead, I will support a Government who I know are determined and committed to ensuring that families continue to have the support that they need, and not just during this crisis—a Government who listen and, I am sure, will take on board all comments made this evening on tackling child poverty. This is a Government who have during this crisis delivered an unprecedented set of measures to ensure that no child was left behind while schools were closed—a Government who will always provide a safety net, and not just at a time of national crisis, to ensure that those who need it most are supported unquestionably.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
I pay tribute to Marcus Rashford for his incredible campaigning on this issue, which meant that 1.3 million children were able to receive meals over the summer. The unbelievable prospect of a Manchester United player having his name sung on my beloved Spion Kop at Anfield would now not be beyond the realms of possibility. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) for her School Breakfast Bill and her tireless efforts to get it through Parliament.
The crisis of food insecurity is having a devastating impact in my community. In August, 2.3 million children were living in households that experienced food insecurity. In Liverpool, West Derby, figures show that even before the covid-19 pandemic 37% of children were living in poverty. If the Government do not provide free school meals over the school holidays, 4,155 children in Liverpool, West Derby will be at risk of going hungry in the middle of winter and in the middle of a pandemic.
As someone who received free school meals as a child and who serves as a school governor in one of the most impoverished wards in the country, I can say from first-hand experience that the difference that passing this motion would make to struggling families cannot be quantified in sheer monetary terms. The mental pressures of worrying about whether your child will have a hot meal a day should not be experienced by any citizen in our nation.
The fact that we have to hold this debate today, and that we have to ask the Government for such a vital provision as free school meals, is quite frankly shocking given the scale of food insecurity in this country right now. Ensuring that millions of our fellow citizens do not go hungry is the Government’s moral duty, and it should be a legal right. As I did in my Westminster Hall debate this morning, I call on the Government to introduce the right to food into UK legislation. That would oblige the Government to make sure that people do not ever go hungry and would mean that measures such as the five-week universal credit delay or the refusal to provide free school meals would be subject to legal challenge. The Prime Minister would not be able to refuse to provide meals to children living in poverty.
I will end by urging the Minister to think again and to support this motion.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I strongly endorse what the Secretary of State has already said and commend the support for children and their families that he outlined. Free school meals have only ever been intended to support pupils during term time and it is important that that arrangement returns.
On the proposals made today, why did colleagues on the Opposition Benches never implement any of them under the Labour Government? We need sensible policies to combat child poverty, not policy by public relations. As a former teacher and head, I have seen many cases in which children are the victims of neglect, and the extra care that we can provide through schools is sometimes life-changing, but it will never replace the role of the parent. When did it suddenly become controversial to suggest that the primary responsibility for a child’s welfare should lie with their parents, or to suggest that people do not always spend vouchers in the way they are intended?
I will share my own experience. My parents separated when I was 11 years old and at one point I had to share a room with my father at my grandmother’s house. I qualified for free school meals, so I have experienced this myself. However, I never considered myself to be a child with a single parent: both parents cared, both parents worked and both parents did their best to provide for their children. Like many, they realised that parental responsibility does not end when a relationship does.
We must focus on breaking the cycle in which the first reaction is to look to the state. It is a vicious circle. We need to support families with early intervention and help with things such as budgeting and employment. Collect and pay arrangements with the Child Maintenance Service show that only 60% of parents make payments—they are not necessarily adequate payments, as the figures are for people who pay anything at all—which leaves 40% who pay nothing. That is a disgrace. There are parents out there doing their best to manage under very difficult circumstances, while there are fathers and, indeed, mothers who disappear and think they can be absolved of all responsibility. This is not just immoral but means that many hard-working parents have to struggle and support their children on their own. The welfare state is rightly there as a safety net, but it is not a replacement. I have spoken to parents in Bassetlaw who have been left without support for years. We need to track these people down and make them contribute towards their children’s welfare. Where is the slick PR campaign encouraging absent parents to take some responsibility for their children? I do not believe in nationalising children. Instead, we need to get back to the idea of taking responsibility. That means less celebrity virtue signalling on Twitter by proxy and more action to tackle the real causes of child poverty.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Secretary of State gave us a spectacular display of number theatre: millions for this, millions for that, billions for this, billions for that. There is no doubt that the Government are facing unprecedented demands for money from all sorts of directions, but I simply do not understand why they draw the red line at hungry children.
I feel ashamed to be an MP today and I feel ashamed of this debate. While we throw mud at each other from the security of these plush green Benches, there are millions of families who do not know where they are going to find the £30 or £40 to feed their kids next week in half-term and have no idea at all where the money is going to come from to feed their kids at Christmas. Even if we agreed the extension of free school meals in school holidays until Easter, there would still be families who struggle. There would still be families claiming universal credit who would not qualify. We need to look again at the eligibility criteria.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend feel, as I do, that the Government could learn a lot from the Welsh Government, where Kirsty Williams, the Liberal Democrat Education Minister, extended free school meals, and that this should actually just be a no-brainer today?
Daisy Cooper
My hon. Friend anticipates my very next point. It was the Liberal party that first introduced free school meals, in 1906. It was the Liberal Democrats in Government who introduced free school meals for 1.89 million infant children. In Wales last week, Liberal Democrat Education Minister Kirsty Williams led the way by agreeing to extend the scheme until Easter next year. Scotland has followed suit. Now it is England’s turn. Why should children in England go hungry when children in Scotland and Wales will have access to support in the coming holidays?
There are colleagues on the Government Benches who have called on us to work with them on a long-term food strategy. We are happy to do that. This debate today does not stop us looking at long-term solutions. But half-term starts in just a few days’ time, and we need to give immediate reassurance to a nation of families who are lying awake at night. I urge every Member of this House to please consider providing that immediate reassurance tonight.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I welcome this debate today, as it gives us an opportunity to have a discussion on challenging issues around poverty in our constituencies. The causes of poverty are not simple. What is most important is sustainable solutions. Increases in the living wage, increases in the income tax threshold, decreases in absolute poverty and income inequality in the long term—those are the sustainable, long-term achievements of this Government. Have we solved everything? No. Could we all—individuals, communities, millionaire celebrities and supermarkets—have a role to play in doing more? Yes. But to pretend that further increasing the role of the state directly in feeding children is a solution is mistaken. Yet again, it sends out the signal that our communities do not have to look after each other.
Again and again, we reinforce the idea that taking money off people through the tax system to support people less well off is always good, but asking people to choose to be generous and support other people in their communities in need is somehow bad. I want to live in a society where our local communities look out for each other and provide support to those who are less well off. I am incredibly proud of the hard work and effort put in by local charities in my constituency that, with help from donations and support from local people and local businesses, support those in need. The Government do have a role to play, but our communities play a role, too. What is so wrong with that?
Danny Kruger
Does my hon. Friend agree that the charities he is talking about are able to be much more targeted, precise, sensitive and generous than a blanket state system?
Dr Mullan
Indeed, and they tend to provide support in a wraparound way. Rather than just giving out a meal, it tends to be part of a broader package of support for a family that tackles things in the longer term.
Why is it that when the state tackles a problem using taxpayers’ money—our money—indirectly, it is always the right solution, but when people choose to help solve a problem themselves directly, it must be a reflection of some kind of failure? The reality is that those on the Opposition Benches are advocating for us to live in a world where the state caters to every need and every challenge and mitigates every consequence. That is the logical conclusion of what they argue. That is not the kind of country I want to live in, where generosity of spirit, kindness and support for our neighbours are somehow surplus to requirements.
I ask high-profile campaigners on this issue to urge their hundreds of thousands of social media followers, who are signing petitions and retweeting, to put an equal amount of energy into encouraging their friends and family to volunteer for charities, to mentor young people, to help parents who are struggling and to donate money to local organisations to fight poverty. I want voices such as Courtney Lawes to be heard as widely as Marcus Rashford’s. The combined wealth of some of the individuals and businesses who think this can all be fixed with money means that they are very well placed to make that change themselves if they think it is necessary.
Do not tell me these problems only start and end with Government. The number of people living in relative poverty in the UK has been around 14 million for decades. I listened to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) throwing accusations such as “shameful” at us. He is no longer in his place, but where was he under the Labour Government, when there were also millions of people, including children, living in poverty? It was not “shameful” then, but apparently when it is the Conservative Government, it becomes shameful.
This Government have acted, and they have played a role. Yes, we need to keep these issues at the heart of the Government’s agenda, and yes, we need to understand the impact of poverty and combat it, but our whole society has a role to play in contributing and helping one another to build lives, livelihoods and families and provide long-term solutions to these challenges.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I put on record my thanks to Marcus Rashford for an excellent goal last night, but also for supporting this fantastic campaign. In this House, we need to realise what we are facing. We are in denial. Our economy has contracted by 9% since March. In my constituency, unemployment has gone up by 182%. Even in one of my very affluent wards in Muswell Hill, there has been a 300% increase in unemployment since the spring.
We are dealing with the biggest recession since the first world war, so some of the arguments today pale into insignificance when compared with the enormity of the economic challenge we face. It is therefore correct to look at quick measures such as this, when normally we would take a strategic view, go through a Select Committee, get evidence and so on. This is an opportunity to act quickly. While we are at it, let us have some good and high-level sports coaching, some arts and crafts, and some of the other things that our families rely on desperately over the half-term break and also during the Christmas holidays.
Our families are under enormous pressure, whether that is before school at breakfast—I am a big believer in breakfast clubs—or after school, because some shifts carry on after 3 o’clock and need to be worked. Let us bring back lots of clubs, because many have stopped because of coronavirus. Also, let us look at increasing the eligibility. I introduced universal free meals for all children in primary school when I was a borough leader. I did that because I felt it was the one public health measure that would make a huge difference. That is not the subject of today’s debate, but it did bring up everyone in the same way and meant every child had a hot meal. The youngsters learned how to use a knife and fork and how to have a conversation with their teachers.
An analysis of packed lunches shows that custard creams and Diet Coke are the most popular thing for kids who have packed lunches. In all sorts of different families, that tends to be the choice, whereas a hot meal in the middle of the day increases good behaviour and helps after school. If we can bring families with no recourse to public funds into the net, it would be fantastic, because it would mean no more popping into the office for someone to explain their circumstances to a judgmental secretary or another judgmental person who might be opposite them. Some parents have shared with me that they feel a sense of stigma going on and off school meals. I will stop there, Madam Deputy Speaker, so that we can hear more speakers.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I doubt anyone in the Chamber tonight would disagree that we must focus the resources of the nation on those who need help most, but whatever the question is before us, it requires a degree of objectivity and evidence in our decision making. Both of those things have been conspicuously lacking in the Opposition’s approach tonight.
Let us consider for a moment the circumstances of the most vulnerable children in our country. There are around 400,000 children on the statutory children in need registers of our local authorities and 52,300 children on child protection plans. We all recognise that they are the most vulnerable, and they are in a system that we all recognise is facing a significant funding gap. What does it say about the Opposition’s priorities that all their interests are simply swept aside in favour of spending taxpayers’ money to curry favour with celebrity status, wealth and power? I have no doubt that Mr Rashford is an expert in his own experience, but we should not forget that the experiences he so movingly described took place under a Labour Government—a Labour Government then supposedly at the peak of their powers in tackling child poverty in this country. So if there was a lamentable failure, it was a lamentable failure of the Labour party when in Government.
The beneficiaries of the earlier free school meals decision, which, of course, went way beyond anything ever done by Labour, at least had recourse to a variety of support. We had universal credit, jobseeker’s allowance, emergency support from local authorities and even, dare I mention it, food banks. But we talk about the need to tackle food poverty in this country, and of course, this debate is happening at a time when the cost of food to British families is at a historic low—8% of household expenditure on average, down from 35% in 1957, when my father was the age that my son is today. If that is not a strategy to tackle food poverty, I do not know what is.
I know that the Opposition do not like to waste a good crisis, but this House should be ashamed if we allow ourselves today to be pushed into setting aside the circumstances of the most needy. Neglect, domestic violence, addiction and family breakdown are the major drivers of that need. They must not be put aside in favour of currying the favour of the wealthy and powerful and celebrities.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
Any debate discussing children is rightly emotive. We must protect them, we must nurture them and we must support them. The question is: how do we do that most effectively? In this debate, we have heard highly charged arguments, which, if listened to in isolation, without reference to the actual facts, would cause any of us to fear for the next generation. But as my namesake, the philosopher Bertrand Russell, once stated:
“The degree of one’s emotions varies inversely with one’s knowledge of the facts.”
The real facts are that throughout this pandemic, this Government have been actively supporting vulnerable children, doing the right thing at the right time. At the start of the pandemic, it was right that unprecedented measures on free school meals were taken. In that time, children’s lives were blurred between home and school, but now schools have opened back up fully to all pupils and more targeted support can be provided.
Let us not forget the facts of this debate. First, we are not ending free school meals. We are returning to the way that it has always been under successive Governments, yet we are also providing an ever more focused approach to support, so that we can reach every child who needs a helping hand. I am conscious in these debates—especially ones such as this—that there can be number fatigue, with statistics and billions thrown here and there, but the facts are the facts, and it is this Government who have increased universal credit by £1,000 this year for families and delivered £63 million in additional funding for councils to provide emergency assistance to families with food essentials and meals. We strengthened welfare support, adding £9 billion into the welfare system this year, not to mention the billions in furlough schemes, business support and a multitude of other packages to charities, individuals and families to help them to put food on tables across the country. I could go on, but the facts are the facts. To round off my speech with one more quotation, as Aldous Huxley once stated:
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
The facts are that the Government have been ensuring targeted support for vulnerable children, both now and into the future, ensuring that the right support reaches the right children at the right time.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
This is a hugely important debate for many families in my constituency and across the north-east and the country. I applaud Marcus Rashford for his hard work in raising this issue. Data from the North East Child Poverty Commission shows that almost 93,000 children and young people across the north-east were in receipt of free school meals in the last academic year, 2019-20. However, these figures do not take into account the full impact—indeed, hardly any of the impact—of covid-19 on family incomes and the number of families who have registered for such support in recent weeks.
In fact, the Food Foundation recently published an estimate that more than 900,000 children have signed up for free school meals for the first time this year. Over 50% of those using Trussell Trust food banks at the start of the pandemic had never needed help from a food bank before, and families with children were the hardest hit, accounting for nearly two in five of the households needing to use a food bank. These are staggering numbers. We talked earlier about universal credit being a help, but so many people are finding for the first time that universal credit is really poor and does not help those most in need, especially those applying for the first time, who might have expected help.
We know from the North East Child Poverty Commission’s figures that more than one in three children and young people grow up in poverty in the north-east and that the north-east has the highest proportion of children in receipt of free school meals. In Gateshead, there were 6,135 students in receipt of free school meals before the covid-19 pandemic. That is 20% of pupils, and that number cannot help but go up in the coming months, as we see the impact of job losses, short-time working and so forth. We know that the covid-19 pandemic will have a huge impact.
During the summer, I had the privilege of visiting some of the holiday hunger schemes and activities in my constituency. I saw at first hand how well appreciated the free lunches and free school meals were in those activities, so I know the difference that they can make. Of course the Government must continue to fund free school meal provision in every school holiday between October half-term and Easter 2021 and extend the offer of free school meals to all families receiving universal credit and those with no recourse to public funds. However, we have to do more than that in the face of this crisis, with rising costs and unemployment, and millions of families falling into poverty.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist). We spent time on the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government, and we agree on much. I also agreed with much that the shadow Secretary of State said earlier. She was my predecessor as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on poverty, so we share many of the concerns that have been raised in this debate.
However, I listened very carefully to what the shadow Secretary of State said, and at one point she said—I hope I do not get this wrong—that it is the Government’s job to make sure children do not go hungry. I differ there, and I think lots of my constituents differ there too, because they would be appalled by the prospect of the Government interfering in their daily lives to make sure their children did not go hungry. Many in this House will be aware that I had a slight fall-out in the Twittersphere with Marcus Rashford a couple of weeks ago on this issue, which is why I wanted to speak today. When somebody said something similar to me on Twitter, I simply tweeted:
“Where they can, it’s a parent’s job to feed their children”.
I noticed that the shadow Secretary of State did not include the caveat “where they can”, and that is the key difference here. It needs—
Kevin Hollinrake
That is what she did not say, and it is a very important principle.
The other important principle is whether the measures that the shadow Secretary of State is proposing are temporary or permanent. Temporary measures in this place tend to become permanent. These are exceptional times, but I can see the outcry in a year or two when we try to reverse these measures: “Oh my God, you can’t do that because of the impact it might have on people.” These measures may well then become permanent, and, if we are honest, what would that mean? It would mean increasing the size of the welfare state and therefore increasing taxation.
Even before covid, we were running a deficit and had done for the vast majority of the last 40 years, so such a measure would mean higher taxes. The alternative, of course, is that we spread a load of welfare among many more people, which will mean that less will go to the people who are really in need. That is the principle we are talking about—whether we are going to target these resources to the people who are really, really in need or whether we are going to spread it more widely. We need to include the taxpayer in this conversation and say to them, “If we are going to increase welfare, you are going to carry the burden.” If we are going to say that people, we should also be saying to people that we are going to clamp down on tax avoidance, which is a stain on the way we handle our tax system. Whether it is multinationals or individuals in the UK who try to avoid tax through things such as image rights, we need to ensure that people pay a fair share of their taxes.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
Coronavirus has blown away many of the old orthodoxies in politics, and this offensive idea of the undeserving poor—feckless parents unwilling to take responsibility—to which the Conservative party seems so ideologically committed just does not hold water. The universal credit system was barely fit for purpose before covid, but it is now on its knees, with parents being made redundant, their hours slashed, and the support system set up for businesses forced to close, leaving people on as little as 66% of the national minimum wage. Others, including those excluded because they were new starters, have been left with nothing. If parents could pull themselves up by their bootstraps before, they certainly cannot now—and their children cannot either.
I pay tribute to the work of Warrington food bank, the Station House food bank, Friends of Meadowside, and the numerous other voluntary groups across our community in Warrington North, who are doing all they can to ensure that no child goes hungry. But there are almost 4,500 children eligible for free school meals in my constituency, many of whom are vulnerable to falling through the cracks. These are families in every single ward of my constituency, from the inner wards, which have the highest rates of deprivation, to the affluent suburbs. All of them have been using food banks—every single ward. The Government can make a choice today to strengthen that safety net and ensure that no child in Warrington goes hungry.
In financial terms, this is a small ask, but it is a vital one in these exceptional times. If the Government can find the money to pay Serco, they can find the money to ensure that the most vulnerable children in our communities are not going to bed hungry.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Miriam Cates, who may wish to make a slightly shorter speech given that she made quite a long intervention earlier; that would allow others to come in.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I will do my best, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The motion calls on the Government to extend free school meal provision throughout the school holidays until Easter next year. Although on the Order Paper this is a debate about free school meals, even if the motion passes, the result will not be more free school meals. To risk stating the obvious, during the holidays schools are closed, and they do not provide physical meals—free or otherwise—to any child. Let us be clear: what is really being called for here is an extension to the voucher scheme that would start in half-term next week by giving supermarket vouchers to parents of children who are eligible. That is not the same as providing a daily nutritious meal to a child in a school environment to help them get the most out of their education. It is important to recognise the difference between free school meals and what they are for, and supermarket vouchers.
The initial supermarket voucher scheme was set up in March and was not an attempt to solve child poverty, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) rightly pointed out, is a matter for the welfare system, not our schools. No one denies that child, and therefore family, poverty does exist, or that we should be doing everything that we can to bring people out of it—I will talk about that more in a moment—but the initial voucher scheme was a practical, administrative response to the unforeseen necessity of closing schools for an indeterminate period. No one suggested at the time that it was anything other than a temporary measure.
The truth is that far too many families do not have enough. They do not have enough money, enough food or enough help. There are many and complex reasons for that, and, sadly, to suggest that supermarket vouchers will somehow fix it is like putting a sticking plaster on a serious wound. But what will work? When the welfare state was launched, the vision was to provide a safety net for those who found themselves out of work and to help them get back on their feet, but now we find ourselves in a position—pre-covid, anyway—where far more of our welfare budget is spent on those in work than those out of work. In other words, at present, work is not always the route out of poverty that it should be.
How do we help people into better paid and secure work, and away from the addiction, the family breakdown and the social issues that all too often trap people in poverty? Education is part of the answer, and I commend my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary for the catch-up schemes, but research shows that the barriers to good work are not just material or educational poverty; lack of social, relational capital prevents many people from finding a way out.
There is no time for me to say more, but I recommend that hon. Members read the work of Hilary Cottam, whose book “Radical Help” proposes a very radical relational community approach to tackling poverty. These are the kinds of things that we should be debating in this House. Child poverty is a serious and complex issue; we need serious and complex solutions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Well, there we are. I call Mary Kelly Foy.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
As someone who personally benefited from free school meals as a child, I congratulate Marcus Rashford on his vital and selfless campaign. Between him and Andy Burnham, I do not think the Prime Minister will be setting foot in Manchester any time soon.
In a previous debate, I said that the Government’s initial U-turn on free school meals was a case of them having to be embarrassed into feeding hungry children. Well, it looks like the Conservatives have moved beyond that. They truly have no shame. What astounds me most about this Government’s approach is the complete lack of responsibility. They are acting like child poverty is purely the fault of the parents and ignoring the leading cause of child poverty: Tory Governments.
It is a fact that this Government have increased poverty. Before this pandemic, their own Social Mobility Commission stated that there are 600,000 more children living in poverty in 2020 than there were in 2012. They cannot blame Labour for that. And let us not ignore the reality that holiday hunger hits the north-east the hardest. Not only does the region have the highest proportion of children in receipt of free school meals, but that number is rising at a faster rate than anywhere else. So much for levelling up.
The coronavirus pandemic and the Government’s incompetent handling of it will only make this crisis worse. Thousands of people will be experiencing poverty for the first time, through absolutely no fault of their own, yet the Government are going to deny them this small bit of help. Even if we ignore the argument that this Government have increased poverty over the last decade, it still does not change the fact that children do not choose to be born into poverty and they do not choose to go hungry during the holidays. Poverty is never the child’s fault. To punish them is as cruel as it is illogical.
The Government believe that it is right to feed these children when they are at school, so why not during the holidays? Poverty does not stop at the end of term. Are the Government planning to let impoverished children go hungry in order to teach them some sort of perverse lesson—to show them the realities of sink-or-swim Conservatism? If, as some Members claim, it is a question of not being able to afford to fund these £15-a-week lunches, I am sure we can make savings somewhere else, such as by cutting some of the £7,000 a day that consultants are being paid for working on the failing track and trace system. Personally, I would rather put food into the stomach of a hungry child than money into the pockets of wealthy consultants.
No matter how they try to justify it, if Government Members oppose the motion, they will be voting to let children go hungry, for no other reason than that they just do not care.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
Over the last decade, we have seen a shocking increase in poverty levels in the UK. In particular, child poverty has risen significantly and should be seen in no uncertain terms as a national crisis. The causes of this increase in poverty are clear: a decade of damaging policies implemented by Conservative Governments who have taken income away from the poorest in our society and redistributed wealth upwards, making the rich even richer.
The scourge of child poverty is a disgrace to a society as rich as ours. In my constituency alone, 15,335 children live in poverty, and many of those children depend on free school meals so that they can go to school and receive the education they deserve. Across Birmingham, the number of pupils who rely on free school meals is higher than in many parts of the country, and that is due in no small part to the shocking levels of poverty that many families currently find themselves in. It is obvious that such poverty and the subsequent support needed by those families does not come to an end when the school term ends.
These measures are essential to families in my constituency who are facing the full force of lost income due to the pandemic and the resultant recession. I have received a great many messages from constituents urging action on free school meals. I, along with my constituents, believe that extending free school meals over the school holidays for the period stated in the motion is the very least this Government can do to assist families in need.
More needs to be done to ensure that no child in my constituency or the country at large goes to school hungry. I want to take this opportunity to raise the recommendations made by School Food Matters, the Food Foundation and many others regarding free school meals. I believe it is necessary to extend free school meals for all children in families receiving universal credit and to extend the holiday activity and food programme to all areas in England, to ensure that summer holiday support is available to all children receiving free school meals. The Healthy Start vouchers also need to be increased.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Unfortunately, I will have to start by referring to the comments made by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). I have high regard for her, but I found her moral superiority quite distressing. I spent eight years of my life working as a secondary school teacher, the overwhelming majority of which was as a head of year, working in some of the most disadvantaged parts of London and Birmingham, seeing the impact of child poverty and child hunger but also of not having a stable family and good role models and of crime and drugs in a local community. I refuse to be lectured by Opposition Members who have not walked in my shoes and seen the things that I have had to witness in my career. I hope the hon. Lady will reflect on those remarks. [Interruption.] I will not be lectured by those on the shadow Front Bench who have not worked in the schools I have worked in or seen the things I have seen. I refuse to be shouted down and treated in this manner.
Let us be very clear about this extension. This is not a one-off extension—this is about free school meals being permanently provided outside of school time. First, who is going to fund that—the school or the state? Do schools provide the meals on-site, or do they have to deliver food parcels? If so, do they have to renegotiate their contracts? Have the unions supported that? Is there understanding of the voucher system, and are they being used in an appropriate and responsible manner? I have had supermarkets, parents and schools contact me directly to say that they have grave concerns about the way in which those vouchers have been used.
This Government have done remarkable work on holiday programmes. I want to mention the Hubb Foundation and its “Ay Up Duck” campaign, run by Carol Shanahan, the co-owner of Port Vale football club, and Adam Yates, a former professional footballer. The Hubb Foundation is providing thousands of meals across the city and providing hundreds of children and parents with the opportunity to participate in activities that not only improve their physical and mental health but ensure that they are fed and that the local authority and schools have health and wellbeing checks done on a regular basis over the holiday.
If we were to have a serious discussion about how to tackle this issue, one way to do that is to reduce the summer holiday from six weeks to four weeks. Childcare costs £133 a week on average. If we redistributed those two weeks, with one in the October half-term and one in the May half-term, we could bring down the cost of the summer holiday for parents and help them to be better able to access the food that they need. Free school meals are indeed important, but it is the role of the school to educate, not to be the welfare state.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
It is not often that I find myself really struggling to follow an hon. Member, but I am struggling to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis). Let me tell him, and his Government. He is not taking lectures from the Labour Benches. But we have experience of poverty. Tell that to the 5,500 children in my constituency who are eligible for free school meals. Tell that to the Marcus Rashfords of this world who grew up in poverty. Tell me, who grew up in poverty. Tell Labour Members who have experienced it at first hand.
Naz Shah
I will not take any lectures, and nor will I take any interventions, when it comes to children in poverty, from the Conservative Benches.
Yesterday, I spoke to the Trussell Trust and the truth is that we expect a 9% increase in children and families starting to use food banks, just because of the £20 cut to universal credit. In addition—wow; it is not often that I get this angry in the House—more than 16,000 of my constituents are on universal credit, yet Members on the Conservative Benches are happy to cut another £20 from that. Only 31% of people in my constituency are taking up the furlough scheme, and many of them will be thrown into poverty when that comes to an end. That figure of 16,000—the number of families affected—will go up day by day, as the virus hits us and people have to make a choice between putting food on their table and going to work, and having to isolate for 14 days. That is what real poverty is. I can speak from experience, having experienced poverty, so I will take no lectures from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North.
This is about morality. This is not a debate about whether it is food bank vouchers or free school meals; this is a debate about poverty. Which bit of that do Members of the House not get? This is about children who will not have a meal, or the sufficient nutrients to go to school or to go about their daily lives and be able to learn. That should be their God-given right. That is what every child in the country should have. We are a rich nation. If people live from food banks, what is the measure of our country? We have kids and families on food banks.
Let me thank all those in my constituency who volunteer at food banks, and who continuously try to plug the gap that 10 years of austerity and the failures of Members on the Conservative Benches and this Government, have left for people in my constituency and up and down the country. Shame on this Government! Shame on the people who are going to walk through that Lobby today and vote this motion down. I know exactly where my moral compass is, and it is on the right side of history.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
I completely agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) has just said. I am saddened that we are talking about free school meals as if they are a luxury. They are not a luxury. I was on free school meals—[Interruption.] No, it is not an option; let’s be honest. I was on free school meals, and I know how important they were for me and my family. On many mornings I had to rush into school, and I was provided with breakfast, lunch and a snack. That gave me the opportunity to focus, study and learn, and to be here today. So I am really saddened that this is what we are here to talk about.
What kind of nation will we be if a single mother from Spon End in my constituency, who struggles to make ends meet due to the minimum wage, has to decide between paying an electricity bill, or paying her rent, and whether her family will have dinner that night? What kind of nation do we want to be, if elected Members of this House, who are in Parliament to represent their constituents and ensure they have the best opportunities in life, can be so callous as to treat the ability of hard- working families from deprived areas to feed their children as such a luxury? Food is not a luxury. It is a basic human right that children should never be hungry, whether at school or at home.
I pay tribute to Feeding Coventry and Coventry food bank, which do a phenomenal job to ensure that all the families in Coventry are not abandoned and are given the food that they need to survive. However, it should not be up to charities such as that; it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that families have the food they need to allow them to be able to make a positive contribution to the society in which we live.
According to Action for Children, over 6,700 children in Coventry live in poverty after housing costs are taken into account. Approximately 2,789 children receive free school meals in my constituency.
We should not be here deciding on whether there should be a vote on this: free school meals should never be something that is put to a vote. It should be something that we work together on across these Benches, saying, “Let us provide opportunity for our constituents, let us give them the ability to achieve their full potential, and let them be able not to worry about food with the issues that are going on.” They are already dealing with covid-19 —they do not need to deal with whether or not they are going to have food. I really do hope that Government Members will sit down, look deep into their hearts, and vote for their constituents to ensure that they are not left behind.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a great honour to follow such passionate and righteous indignation from my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) in representing their constituents so powerfully.
It should shame all of us in this House that amidst one of the greatest economic and health crises in modern history we are having to vote to force this Government to extend free school meals over the holidays just so that children do not go hungry at Christmas. We may well be living in unprecedented times, but we are still the fifth richest country in the world and are more than capable of supporting the most vulnerable in our society.
We are in the middle of the most severe crisis our nation has faced since it stood and fought for democracy and sovereignty in world war two. There can be no half measures as our nation pulls together to get us through a dark hour indeed. This country is so sick and tired of asking the Government to do the right thing. Time and again, this Government are showing our nation that they are simply not fit to govern during a time of crisis, nor do they prioritise the interests of ordinary working people.
Before the covid crisis, more than 4,000 children were eligible for free school meals in my constituency. After the pandemic hit, that figure more than doubled, with many now reliant on welfare support just to make ends meet. A fifth of Ilford South’s population are still on furlough, with a significant number forecast to lose their jobs over the next month as a result of the Government’s inadequate job support package. It is shocking—absolutely shocking—that more than 2 million children across our country are living in households that experience food insecurity during this pandemic. With over 1 million children living in areas that are now subject to harsher lockdowns, the number of children that will require this additional support will only increase.
We are failing our children at a time of national crisis. The lack of support provided to socioeconomically disadvantaged children will scar their futures. What we are asking from this Government is neither radical nor impractical. Well-governed nations around the world continue to prove that there is another way. In New Zealand, despite already having lower child poverty rates than the UK, a competent Labour-majority Government have found the means to prioritise free school meals within their covid-19 recovery. If the UK were to match the scale of that commitment made by Jacinda Ardern, it would have to provide almost 3 million students with free school meals. If it is good enough for New Zealand, it is good enough for our great nation as well.
I implore this Government to adopt the calls from the Food Foundation and other civil society organisations to implement three of the recommendations from the national food strategy. The parents of children in Ilford South, who are desperate to get by and to provide for their families, and are defiant in the face of such disregard, are doing their bit to beat this virus, yet their businesses, staff and wage support are slashed while their children go hungry.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
As I stand here once again at the Dispatch Box winding up an Opposition day debate on free school meals, I have a strong sense of déjà vu, because just four months ago I was standing in this exact spot speaking on the exact same topic—extending free school meals over the upcoming holidays. The big difference between now and then is that just hours before the big debate in June, the Prime Minister performed a U-turn. Today, sadly, there has been no U-turn, and 1.4 million children will be without a hot meal from next week during half-term. For some, it is the only nutritious meal they get every day.
We are about to face one of the toughest winters of our generation. With the pandemic, with the flu season upon us and with the furlough scheme coming to an end, parents are twice as likely to be furloughed than anyone else working, and now they have to worry about feeding their children. We should all be hanging our heads in shame. Some 1.5 million people are already unemployed, the Bank of England has predicted that the employment rate will rise above its previous forecast of 7.5% this year, and food bank use in this country is expected to be 51% higher this winter than last. Almost 1 million of the children who are set to lose their free school meals next week are in areas that are subject to tier 1 and tier 2 restrictions.
Tulip Siddiq
I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way; I have a lot to get through.
Before I sum up the important contributions that were made in this debate, I want to thank someone who is not an MP but who probably should be. Marcus Rashford has done us proud. It pains me, as a Liverpool fan, to say that—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) felt the same when we praised him earlier—but we congratulate him on holding the Government to account and on the amazing goal that he scored last night.
I want to pay tribute to two other people who are not in the Chamber today, my hon. Friends the Members for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for all the work they have done in championing this issue.
My hon. Friends the Members for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) made passionate speeches about the struggles of the poor children in their constituencies, and I think the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West will go down in history for demonstrating the passion that she feels about representing the poor people in her constituency. We also heard a very passionate and personal story from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) about being on free school meals and how that benefited her. That shows just how important being well fed is for a child. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) also spoke passionately about the struggles in his constituency when it comes to food poverty.
The Government do not think it is worth spending £157 million to ensure that hungry children can get food support in the holidays during a pandemic. Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) pointed out, they think it is worth spending £7,000 a day on a consultant for Serco’s failing test and trace system. I do not know whether the House is aware that that fee alone could pay for 2,300 meals for hungry children next week during half term. The amount that we are paying one consultant per day to deliver Serco’s failing test and trace system could pay for 2,300 meals for hungry children. Please let that sink in.
All the other nations of the UK understand this and have now committed to holiday provision. It is only children in England who will not get the support—again, shameful. I pay tribute in particular to the Welsh Government, who have not only guaranteed support through spring next year, but at every stage announced it well in advance, giving families certainty and the right to plan. The result of that strong leadership is that parents in Wales are not having to worry about whether they can put food on the table next year.
I want to share a quote from a parent who shared their experience with the Children’s Society last month. They said, “I tell my kid to make sure they eat all their school meals, as it may be the only meal they have. I often have nothing to eat and any food I do have I give to my kid, as they only get one meal a day. I don’t have a meal many days.” I would like all the Conservative MPs in the Chamber to think about a child who they know, whether it is their own child, their niece or nephew, a godchild or a friend’s child. How would they feel if that child was going to sleep tonight not having eaten, and knowing that when they wake up tomorrow there is no food in the fridge? Can they imagine that small person having a rumbling stomach when they are going to bed at night? This is what we are voting on today. It is about humanity.
Many people on the Opposition Benches might not agree with me, but I genuinely believe that most MPs came into this House for the right reasons. I believe they came into politics because they wanted to make a difference and because they wanted to protect the most vulnerable. This is a chance to demonstrate why we came into politics. I know it is not easy to rebel against the party. I have rebelled a few times against my own party, and it has never been easy, but this is about principles above party. I know it is not easy to defy the Prime Minister, but I am asking hon. Members from across the House to think carefully about what they are going to say when they go back to their constituencies and there are hungry children because they voted in the wrong Lobby. I know it is a hard thing to do, but once again I am asking Conservative MPs to vote with us tonight.
As the House knows, we are in the middle of Black History Month, so I will conclude by quoting a very famous black person, Nelson Mandela, who once said:
“There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children.”
Before Conservative Members vote today, I ask them please to think about what Nelson Mandela said.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
We
“are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]
I think that feeling has come through in many of the speeches tonight made by right hon. and hon. Members. It came through even where there was anger about some of the different policy approaches that could be taken. I think the House is absolutely united in wanting to do the best for vulnerable children.
Social justice has been at the absolute heart of every decision that the Government have taken to help the people of this country get through this pandemic together. Whether it is about trying to do our best to save lives and livelihoods, about devising the shielding scheme where we provided 4.2 million food boxes to people, or about making sure that schools were kept open by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the most vulnerable children in society, those are the approaches that we have taken in trying to make sure that we can get through this pandemic together.
It is a truism that when the Labour party has left government, unemployment has always been higher than when it went into office. That is not the same for Conservative Governments. The Conservative approach is that the best way out of poverty is through work. What we have also done in the time that we have been in office since 2010 is to make a shift away from the cliff edges that happened under the tax credit system, where people made rational decisions that they would be better off not working than working. We have turned that on its head so that people will be better off in work unless they cannot work.
I am very conscious that in every constituency it is highly likely that we will see unemployment rising in a very difficult and challenging way, particularly for the sectors that we know about such as hospitality and similar, and where we have put much greater national restrictions. Right here, right now, this Conservative Government are standing behind the people and businesses of this country to help them when they need it most. In terms of our schools, I have already pointed out that we had extra support throughout the year, including through holiday activities. In terms of supporting employees, we have had the furlough scheme, which will take us through to the end of October, through half-term. It has cost, and is costing, taxpayers £53 billion to provide that support for families right across the country. There will be a new job support scheme with enhanced measures for those parts of the country where stricter and more radical public health changes need to be made, in order to help to tackle this virus. Amid all that, I am very proud of the people that work in my Department for the support that they have given to vulnerable people across the country, making sure that we have got money to people when they needed it in terms of the welfare state.
In particular, it is important to stress that £9.3 billion is not a small amount of money compared to what was injected into the welfare system when we had the last financial crisis. It is giving families an extra £20 a week, and that takes those families right through to Easter next year. It is important that we try to make sure that we have that targeted support, which is why, in addition to the councils that received £500 million extra earlier in the year, an extra £63 million was specifically given to councils, because our social workers know the families in their areas who are at risk and can get that extra help to them. Of course, with the Barnett formula, all the devolved nations have had extra funding as well.
We are in a situation where the Government have firmly stood behind the most vulnerable children and people in the country, and I am very proud of our Government for doing that.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
There are 3,829 children in Coventry South who receive free school meals. Talking to their parents, I know how valuable that provision is—how they depend on it, and how their kids would starve without it. So I ask the Minister and MPs on the Government Benches: “If you vote against the motion, if you let kids go to sleep hungry at night, how do you not feel any sense of shame?”
Dr Coffey
Some of the hon. Lady’s hon. Friends made important speeches. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) spoke in praise of the holiday activities and food in the summer. We share her view on that; it is one of the schemes that we funded. The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) was absolutely right in her passionate conviction that we are here to do what we can to help children in society; and that is what we have been doing—not least by improving children’s educational attainment, to enable them to have a genuine future career.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who have experience as teachers, said that a major part of our approach should be to improve the chances of families. That is why the Government are working together—we are working with my hon. Friends in other Departments—not only on identifying what we can do to help the most challenged families in society, but on tackling the cost of living. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy announced the extension of the energy price cap, and we shall continue to do more. Nearly a million pensioners are getting £140 off their energy bills later this year without lifting a finger; that is what we are doing to help people.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), who was praised by her near neighbour the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, spoke about the benefits of a hot meal in the middle of a school day that helps children learn. Yes, we agree. We have provided that, and extended it to the youngest children automatically. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) is right that we must continue to focus on those children who are in protection plans, and those families who are suffering drug abuse and family breakdown, and we need to keep a focus on making sure that we support the child in the whole.
We are actually in quite a different situation from where we were earlier in the year, when we were in a national lockdown, with a very strong “stay at home” message, and people’s lives were highly restricted. The virus was new; it was scary. We were—and still are—continuing to learn how to handle the situation, but together as a Government we have tried to ensure that we continue to put the vulnerable first. We are in a different situation now. We are not in the same measures of lockdown. More people have come off the furlough scheme and are now back in work—they can work from home or go to work. Schools are open. The NHS is treating many more people, not just the people with coronavirus. So we need to encourage life to continue as it is. That is why we have put those enhanced measures into tier 2 and tier 3. I congratulate the leaders of the councils who have decided to take that offer of support from the Government, to ensure that they can help the people who they represent.
It is really important that we continue to come together as a House to recognise the support that has gone in. That is why we tabled the amendment to today’s motion, recognising that we have undertaken significant ways to help the most vulnerable children in society. I am very keen to ensure that we keep that focus on the most important of our generations for the future, so that people do not fall through the cracks. That is why I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Ministers across Government, including the Prime Minister, say regularly that there will be nobody left behind, and that we will do our best to strive every day to save the lives and livelihoods of people in this country.
We really must consider, genuinely, what should be uniting us today. I am very conscious that Labour Members may think that theirs is the only way to approach this issue. I say gently to them: recognise the support that has been given to the families that you represent; recognise the £9.3 billion in welfare alone, never mind the furlough income that has been there, and is continuing to help people. So, right here, right now, let the House come together, support the amendment and show a united message to the people of this country that we shall support, and continue to support, the most vulnerable people in our country.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I now have to announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions.
On the draft Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, the Ayes were 342 and the Noes were 237, so the Ayes have it.
On the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1031), the Ayes were 353 and the Noes were nil, so the Ayes have it.
On the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1045), the Ayes were 333 and the Noes were one, so the Ayes have it.
On the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England, North East and North West of England and Obligations of Undertakings (England) etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1057), the Ayes were 332 and the Noes were four, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, the Ayes were 324 and the Noes were 188, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
Business without Debate
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 2 and 3 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Electronic Communications)
That the draft Communications Act (e-Commerce) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 24 September, be approved.
Education
That the draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Student Support) (England) (Coronavirus) (Revocation) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 28 September, be approved.—(David Duguid.)
Question agreed to.
Petitions
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Glasgow East who wish to see support for the travel industry.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of the constituency of Glasgow East,
Declares that the economic consequences of the Coronavirus pandemic have had a devastating effect on the travel and tourism sector; notes that, normally, outbound and inbound travel is estimated to generate approximately £65bn to the UK economy; further notes that an estimated 12,000 jobs are already lost and approximately a further 75,000 jobs could be at risk; further declares that no more operators should be pushed to bankruptcy; and further declares that any work by the Secretary of State for Transport to support the travel industry should be in coordination with the #SaveTravel Campaign organised by Trade Travel Gazette.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to immediately bring forward additional measures to support the travel industry, including the aviation sector, coach companies and travel booking agencies.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002610]
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Easington and others from former coalmining communities and beyond about the need for an inquiry into policing at the Orgreave coking plant on 18 June 1984.
The petition declares:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Easington,
Declares that the UK Government has a responsibility to investigate properly the behaviour of the police at the Orgreave coking plant miners’ strike on 18 June 1984; further declares that it fails this responsibility with its decision on 31 October 2016 not to order an inquiry into the policing of the strike; further declares that the silence of the UK Government on this issue is irreconcilable with Scotland and Wales, where the Scottish Parliament completed its own review in February 2019 into the policing of the Miners’ Strike in Scotland and the Welsh Assembly continues to call for a review; and further declares that, until a light can be shone on the government participation and police operations during the Miners’ Strike 1984-85, and specifically on 18 June 1984 at Orgreave, this historic injustice will continue to fuel public unrest at the lack of accountability of the state.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and review its decision not to order an independent inquiry into the policing at the Orgreave coking plant on 18 June 1984; and to consider afresh the legal submission presented to the Home Secretary by the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign in 2015.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002615]
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
One of the traumatic effects of the covid-19 restrictions has been for people who have planned their weddings. Some have had to cancel their dream wedding; others now have to massively scale them down. Those are emotional impacts, but there is a wider economic impact, which is why I present this petition for support for the wider wedding industry.
Just today, I was contacted by the manager of a hotel; they are really struggling because of the local lockdown restrictions but also cited the loss of wedding trade as one of the impacts. The wedding industry covers hospitality venues, catering suppliers, outfitters, bands, DJs, limousine and taxi-hire companies, coach companies and photographers, and many of those people have not had any support whatsoever.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bring forward immediate additional measures to support the wider wedding industry, including hospitality venues, outfitters, suppliers, the entertainment industry, photographers, vehicle hire companies and coach hire companies.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of the residents of the constituency of Kilmarnock and Loudoun,
Declares that the economic consequences of the Coronavirus pandemic have had a devastating effect on the wider wedding industry; further declares that this impact is felt across hospitality venues, catering suppliers, outfitters, bands and DJs, limousine and tax hire companies, coach companies, and photographers; further declares that many of these groups now have no income or support; further declares that these are all viable businesses when restrictions are lifted and full weddings can take place; and further declares that many people have been personally disappointed by the lost opportunity to marry their loved ones in the setting they dreamed of, further that many people hope that they have their maximum choice available post covid-19 pandemic.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bring forward immediate additional measures to support the wider wedding industry, including hospitality venues, outfitters, suppliers, the entertainment industry, photographers, vehicle hire companies and coach hire companies.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002616]
Hedge End Train Station: Accessibility
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
I rise to raise with the Government an issue that has been a long-standing concern of my constituents living in Hedge End, Botley, West End and Fair Oak, and that is the lack of accessibility at Hedge End train station in my constituency. It is good to see present in the Chamber my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond). I know that they have constituents who use the railway station.
Before I go into detail about the particular circumstances concerning Hedge End, I wish to give the Minister some context in respect of why I have called for action and for this debate in particular. Over the past 20 years, the population of Eastleigh borough has grown by 15%, which is almost double the national average rate. We have also seen significant increases in house building, particularly in Hedge End, which sadly has not been matched with the new infrastructure needed to serve the growing population. The situation has been exacerbated by the failure of the local council, which has been unable or unwilling to put in place a suitable local plan to guide and shape development in a sustainable way.
The volume of new housing in Hedge End has been substantial. Between 2001 and 2011, new homes delivered at Dowd’s Farm, a major strategic development in Hedge End North, increased the population in that borough council ward by 33.6%. That is in 10 years. Between 2011 and now, major new housing developments have delivered a further 450 new homes, with more housing delivered not only as part of Dowd’s Farm but at Kings Copse Road and St John’s Road, near to the southern parish’s excellent Conservative club.
Looking ahead, Eastleigh Borough Council has either granted planning permission or allocated space for a further 738 new homes to be built in Hedge End in the next 10 years. In simple terms, we have had the housing growth and population increases, and we will continue to have more housing growth, but we have not got the infrastructure that should go hand in hand with this level of past, present and planned development.
Members may have been to my constituency to campaign in one or both of the by-elections that have taken place there in the past 25 years—although it is safe to say, I hope, that there will be no further by-elections in my constituency—and if they did, they would have arrived at either Southampton Airport Parkway or Eastleigh town centre. At the next election, during my hopefully successful re-election campaign, I want to give colleagues the opportunity to see Hedge End town’s vibrant offer after coming into a Hedge End train station with greater accessible transport.
Towns and villages such as Hedge End, Botley, Bursledon and Hamble are served by small stations that lack the facilities required to serve growing settlements. Many of my constituents choose to live in Hedge End because of the railway connections to London, the great sense of community and the excellent local schools, such as Wildern School and Berrywood, to name but two. This explains why Hedge End station is well used, with more than 522,000 entries and exits in the past year alone. That is up from 506,000 in 2017. However, for some people in my constituency entering the station is not as easy as exiting the station and that is what I hope the Minister will be able to assist with today.
Parents with disabled children, disabled adults and parents with pushchairs or prams are unable to use Hedge End station to travel because there are no lifts, wheelchair or pushchair-accessible facilities at the station. Travellers or commuters with mobility issues are left in the unacceptable situation of being able to take the train to London from Hedge End, but they are forced to alight at Southampton Airport, Eastleigh, Fareham or other stations towards Portsmouth for their return journey.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this incredibly important debate. Does he agree that all too often it is our disabled constituents who get the roughest deal when it comes to public transport, particularly on our rail network, and that we simply have to do better to make sure they have the same access to get around the country as we do?
Paul Holmes
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Many constituents have written to me to tell me how they have disabled children or that they have disabilities themselves, and that at the moment they cannot travel into London. The only way, which I will come on to later, they can get to London and have that mobility is by taking a journey in a car or by paying for a cab to go down the M27 and into Eastleigh town centre or Southampton. She is completely correct. Members across the House have stations where this is a problem and we need to get better at providing that solution for people with disabilities, so they can travel as well as those who are able-bodied. That is why I say to the Minister that the situation at Hedge End surely cannot be allowed to continue.
Southampton Airport and Eastleigh, which are the closest stations to Hedge End, are still over five miles away by car or taxi, which naturally come with additional costs and inconvenience. The lack of access to the station means that people from the southern half of my constituency are forced to travel to Southampton Airport Parkway, which has an annual usage of 1.7 million passengers, or Eastleigh, which has an annual usage of 1.6 million passengers, by driving through the towns of Fair Oak, Horton Heath or Bishopstoke, or down the M27. That creates another problem. Our towns and villages, such as Eastleigh, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak, are struggling with a lack of investment in road infra- structure caused by the overdevelopment of housing. This means that the roads around Eastleigh and Southampton Airport station are often blocked in rush hour and inaccessible, too. There is a wider point in that the Government quite rightly—I completely support them—argue that we need greener and more sustainable forms of travel. I agree, but the current facilities at Hedge End station do not facilitate that and in many respects actively discourage it. That is, of course, bad for passengers, bad for the environment and bad for our local transport networks.
The Minister will know that levelling up is not just about solving a geographical problem between north and south. It is about equal opportunity and better outcomes for those who are disadvantaged. I firmly believe that with the installation of either a lift or wheelchair accessible facilities at Hedge End station, we can achieve exactly the sort of results that are at the heart of this Government’s agenda.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about a very important topic, which is equally important to the constituencies that neighbour his own. As he said, it is a very fast-growing station—with, I think, 138% growth since 2000—so it is important to my constituents. Has he considered that it is possible to get on the Fareham-bound platform along a footpath, which at the moment is very muddy? Has he looked at whether we can develop that side of the station to enable people with disabilities to access Fareham-bound trains?
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. She knows the station as well as I do, and her constituents use it. There are options to improve the footbridge from that side of the train station. I share her sentiments and her aspiration, and think that that is an adequate step for the short term, but with the number of people who will use the station in the longer term with the increase in population from those moving into the constituency, we need to go further. That is why I secured the debate tonight and I thank her for her intervention.
With the installation of either a lift or wheelchair-accessible facilities at Hedge End station, we can achieve the sort of results that are at the heart of the Government’s agenda. We can give disabled people the opportunity to easily travel for work and enjoyment, we can make life better for families and parents with young children, we can improve our environment by getting more cars off the road, and we can make sustainable travel alternatives a sensible, viable option for my constituents and the wider community.
With all those benefits, I hope the Minister will reflect on the strong case for upgrading the facilities at Hedge End station and make the station a priority for future funding allocations. I know that he will acknowledge that I have written to him and lobbied him before, in the Tea Room and other locations, and I will continue to lobby him to get the funding we need. However, if he would like to make our life in Eastleigh just a little bit easier, I look forward to him writing to me, or he could just give me and my constituents the good news that he is allocating the funding right now.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) on giving colleagues across the House the opportunity to discuss the important subject of accessibility to the railway network, in particular in his constituency at Hedge End station. I thank him for the very positive engagement that we have had on this matter. I promise him that his polite and persistent manner will achieve a lot for his constituents in this place. The way in which he goes about his business is completely professional and does him great credit.
I recognise how important it is for my hon. Friend’s constituents to have access to the railway to get to and from work, to see family and friends, and to go about their lives. I know from the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) how important it is for their constituents, too. I should also acknowledge my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) and for High Peak (Robert Largan), who care passionately about accessibility on the railway and are here to listen to the debate, and my opposite number, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who assiduously attends these debates and who I know is passionate about this area too.
Delivering a transport system that is truly accessible to all is of great importance to the Government. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh has seen the Department for Transport’s inclusive transport strategy, published in 2018, and recognises it as evidence of the Government’s commitment to taking action to safeguard and promote the rights of all disabled passengers. We do not deny that our strategy is ambitious, but we are determined to deliver it. By 2030, we want disabled people to have the same access to transport as everyone else. If physical infrastructure remains a barrier, assistance will play a role in guaranteeing those rights.
An accessible transport network is central to the Government’s wider ambition to build a society that works for all. Regardless of the nature of a person’s disability, they should have the same access to transport and the same opportunity to travel as everyone else, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North said. This is an important measure for reducing social isolation and creating opportunities for people to play a more active role in society. We know, for example, that disabled people are more than twice as likely to be unemployed as non-disabled people. The simple ability to travel from A to B should not be a barrier to someone becoming employed.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh knows, many of our stations are Victorian and their infrastructure is not fit for today. The 19th-century stations were not built with the needs of 21st-century passengers in mind, which has left us with a huge task of opening up the rail network to disabled passengers. Although 75% of journeys are through step-free stations, only about a fifth of stations, 20%, have proper step-free access into the station and to and between each platform.
Clearly, there is a lot more to be done. Accessible stations make a huge difference to people’s journey experience, not only for those with reduced mobility but for those carrying heavy luggage, those pushing pushchairs with children and a whole host of other people. That is why we have continued the Access for All programme. The inclusive transport strategy included a commitment to extend the programme across control period 6 in rail, between 2019 and 2024—we love to work in five-year periods—with an additional £300 million of funding from the public purse. My hon. Friend might also be aware that in March the Chancellor included an extra £50 million in the Budget for that programme.
Caroline Nokes
As Chair of the Select Committee on Women and Equalities, I can tell the Minister that the issue of disabled people and transport is a subject dear to the Committee’s heart. Can he give us some indication of the sums that the Chancellor has extended to the network to improve accessibility at stations and how many that might help?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I will come on to that later in my speech and, like my right hon. Friend, I am very passionate about this area. I have done a huge amount, I would like to think, to help people with learning disabilities, and I was the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on learning disability in this place before I was fortunate enough to become a Minister.
I know we need to do a great deal more, but I guess I can say to my right hon. Friend that this new funding builds on the previous success. It was launched as a 10-year programme in 2006. So far, it has installed accessible step-free routes at more than 200 stations, and some 1,500 stations have benefited from smaller-scale access improvements.
The new funding allows design work to restart on all the projects deferred by the 2016 Hendy review into Network Rail delivery and allows even more stations to be included in the programme. We asked the industry to nominate stations for the new funding, and we received more than 300 nominations, most of which came through the train operating companies, often in partnership with local authorities, Members of Parliament or local councillors who were championing them.
Nominated stations were then selected based on criteria, which included—this is quite an important inclusion—annual footfall and the incidence of disability in the area. We also took into account other local factors, such as proximity to a hospital or the availability of third-party funding for the project and, indeed, ensured a fair geographic spread of the projects across the country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh will know, Hedge End was nominated for Access for All funding, but was not successful this time round. That was largely because of its low footfall compared with other stations nominated by South Western Railway. I understand his disappointment that Hedge End was not selected. All inaccessible stations deserve funding, but as he would understand, we receive many more nominations for the programme than we are able to support at this time. Stations are selected for funding through a prioritisation and assessment process. It was difficult to justify Hedge End’s inclusion at this time ahead of other busier stations that had a higher priority for the reasons I have just given and as suggested by the industry.
Paul Holmes
I apologise for interrupting the Minister, and I am grateful for his comments, but will he just clarify something for me and my constituents? He says that Hedge End was unsuccessful in bidding for funding last time, which I completely accept—his communication with me was perfectly courteous on that—but will future funding bids take into account the historic increase in footfall in stations, which Hedge End will have over the next five years, but also has had over the past five years?
Chris Heaton-Harris
Yes. Footfall is a very important factor in the criteria that we take into account. Should further funding become available, or if there are significant underspends elsewhere in the existing delivery programme, I will look to select further stations. I cannot guarantee that that will happen, and I cannot yet guarantee that Hedge End will be among them, because unfortunately it is far from unique, but it will be given due consideration along with the other unsuccessful stations, and I can tell my hon. Friend that I will bear in mind this debate at that time, along with all the very valid arguments he has made this evening.
I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to improving access across the rail network, and we will seek further opportunities and funding to make further improvements. We are also pressing the industry to comply with its legal obligations to ensure that work at stations meets current accessibility standards and for the Office of Rail and Road to enforce the standards effectively. That applies not only to the flagship projects, such as Crossrail or the redevelopment of Birmingham New Street—all of which are delivering significant accessibility improvements—but also as part of the business-as-usual work of the renewals programme, such as making sure that any replacement bridges have lifts or ramps.
It is also important that the industry meets its obligations to anyone who needs assistance, whether or not they have booked ahead of time. Every passenger should get the best possible help to use the trains, particularly at stations that do not have accessibility features. Each operator is required to have an accessible travel policy in place as part of its licence to operate services. The policy sets out the services that disabled passengers can expect and what to do if things go wrong. It commits the operator to meeting its legal obligations by making reasonable adjustments to its services to allow disabled people to use them, for example by providing an accessible taxi free of charge to anyone unable to access a particular station.
The Office of Rail and Road recently consulted on revised accessible travel policy guidance, which included new proposals that will strengthen the provisions put in place to ensure that disabled people can use the rail network. I have encouraged the ORR to take enforcement action against train and station operators who are found not to be meeting their accessibility obligations.
Every disabled passenger should be confident that the assistance they have booked will be provided. The Department has worked with the Rail Delivery Group to create the new passenger assistance application, which will make it easier for disabled passengers to book assistance. We encourage the ORR to be as ambitious as possible with regard to the proposals to reduce the minimum notice period for booking assistance, and to set the shortest minimum period that operational constraints allow, based on its knowledge of and input of its routes.
I know that there is more we can do to make the rail network more accessible. Therefore, we will be introducing a new set of accessibility requirements. Those include the introduction and delivery of enhanced disability awareness training to all train operating company staff, regardless of their role or seniority, and mandating all train operators running new franchises, or these new emergency recovery measures agreements, to write annually to the Secretary of State for Transport and me, as the transport accessibility Minister, outlining all activity that has been conducted to improve accessibility for rail passengers, including what they have done beyond the obligations in their franchise agreements and future rail contracts. We have actively supported the establishment by the industry of an independent rail ombudsman with powers to deal with unresolved passenger complaints. However, as I say, there is a lot more to be done in this area, and not all of it involves more cash.
I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that the Government are committed to improving access at stations for disabled passengers, through both specific projects such as Access for All and improvements delivered as part of our wider commitment to improving the rail network. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh and all colleagues for their contributions to the debate. I appreciate the frustration of passengers who do not have access to stations in their area, but I hope that my hon. Friend has been reassured that the Government remain committed to investment that will provide and improve services in this area. We want all people to continue to benefit from the record levels of funding, including Access for All investment, that we are putting into the rail network at this point in time, and I thank my hon. Friend very much indeed for raising this issue in the manner in which he did.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) | Chris Elmore |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Caroline Nokes |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Dawn Butler |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Rachel Hopkins |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Caroline Nokes |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Jeremy Hunt |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Maria Caulfield |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Jonathan Edwards |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Bim Afolami |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Craig Mackinlay |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Caroline Nokes |
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) | Steve Baker |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Fay Jones |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Maria Caulfield |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) | Stuart Andrew |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Kate Osborne |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Lloyd Russell-Moyle |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stewart Malcom McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) | Chris Elmore |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Kate Osborne |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Rebecca Harris |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Osamor (Jarrow) | Nadia Whittome |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Peter Aldous |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Robert Courts |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Dawn Butler |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Deferred Divisions
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
That the draft Citizens' Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 21 September, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 343 / Noes: 237 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1031), dated 23 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24 September, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 353 / Noes: 0 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1045), dated 27 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28 September, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 333 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England, North East and North West of England and Obligations of Undertakings (England) etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1057), dated 30 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30 September, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 332 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 28 September, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 324 / Noes: 188 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Draft Taking Account of Convictions (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind hon. Members about social distancing. The seats to be taken are marked. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members send any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Taking Account of Convictions (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2020.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Robertson.
I will be extremely brief. This is a straightforward draft statutory instrument, which will implement into UK law a provision that we agreed to in the withdrawal agreement a year or so ago. Simply, it makes a transitional provision, so that when we leave the transition period at the end of December, the current regime for taking account of previous convictions in relation to convictions that happened in European Union member states will continue to apply where criminal proceedings begin before the end of the transition period but conclude after it ends. It is as simple as that.
Any criminal proceedings beginning once we are through the transition period will be under the new regime. As I said, this simple transitional measure implements into UK law an undertaking we made in the withdrawal agreement.. I commend the draft instrument to the Committee.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, even briefly.
As the Minister outlined, the draft SI will ensure that the TAC framework continues to apply in court proceedings that start but do not conclude before the end of the transition period. We support the measure. Anyone subject to legal proceedings that start but are not completed during the transition period will be treated in the same way as they would be today. In such cases, therefore, previous convictions in EU member states will still be considered in criminal proceedings in UK courts.
When the UK ratified the withdrawal agreement, we agreed that the TAC framework would continue to apply in UK courts in that way. Failure to comply would mean that the UK was not meeting its legal obligations—an unthinkable prospect for Opposition Members. I assure the Minister that the Opposition fully recognise the importance of adhering to international legal obligations. It is unfortunate that the same can no longer be said of many of his Conservative colleagues. The Opposition remain steadfastly committed to supporting the rule of law, so it follows that we will not oppose the draft regulations.
Legal certainty is a central principle in the administration of justice in this country. It is only right that offenders are sentenced in accordance with legislation in place at the time of the commission of the offence, rather than in line with any subsequent changes. The growing length of time between the commission of an offence and sentencing in the UK and the myriad delays in our courts system, which has been hamstrung by the compound impact of the pandemic and a decade of devastating cuts, only further underline the necessity of the provisions in the draft SI.
I would interested to hear from the Minister a little more detail on the numbers and types of cases expected to be covered by the proposed regulations, and whether they will be time-limited in any way. Opposition Members remain alarmed at the Government’s apparent intention regarding its international legal obligations at times but the regulations are introduced under the terms of the withdrawal agreement and we will not oppose them.
Chris Philp
I do not propose to detain the Committee a great deal longer. On a time limit, I do not believe that there is one for the provision that we are discussing. On the performance of the courts system in general, I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that before the pandemic the number of outstanding Crown court cases was in fact lower than it was in 2010.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 23 September. Flag flying from Government buildings and court buildings in Northern Ireland is regulated by the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000. The regulations provide that on certain designated days the Union flag and, in certain circumstances, other flags must be flown from Government buildings. For the purposes of the regulations, a Northern Ireland Government building is defined as
“wholly or mainly occupied by members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service”.
In 2002, the flag-flying requirements in the 2000 regulations were extended to court buildings in Northern Ireland. The 2000 regulations also stipulate a number of so-called specified buildings at which the Union flag must be flown on the designated days in question. The specified buildings chosen at the time of the 2000 regulations were the headquarters of Northern Ireland Government Departments.
The instrument before the Committee today amends the 2000 regulations in two ways. First, it amends the list of designated days, and implements a commitment made by the UK Government in the New Decade, New Approach agreement to update the 2000 regulations to bring the list of designated flag-flying days from Northern Ireland Government buildings and courthouses into line with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport designated days, meaning that the same designated days will be observed in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the UK. That will involve the addition of three designated days, referred to in New Decade, New Approach: the birthdays of the Duchess of Cambridge, the Duke of Cambridge and the Duchess of Cornwall.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer than necessary, and I will support the Government today, but in designating those days I lament that we have missed an opportunity. As a country, we have a very meagre number of designated days and public holidays. This could have been a wonderful opportunity to designate 23 June as Britain’s independence day. Like Fête Nationale in France or Festa della Repubblica in Italy, it could have been the day that we celebrated our independence. I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment on that.
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend, as always, makes an excellent point. I can feel a Westminster Hall debating coming on, perhaps, or even a private Member’s Bill. As I was saying, however, the amendment is about bringing flag-flying days in Northern Ireland into line with those applied already across the rest of the United Kingdom, so he may want to change UK law in other respects with that end in mind.
The second amendment is to the list of specified buildings, which has not been amended since the 2000 regulations were made. It includes a building, Churchill House, that was demolished in 2004 and does not include two buildings that have since become the headquarters of Northern Ireland Government Departments: Clare House, the headquarters of the Department of Finance, and Causeway Exchange, the headquarters of the Department for Communities. The instrument removes Churchill House from the list of specified buildings and adds to it Clare House and Causeway Exchange.
The Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 sets out the process that must be followed in order to amend the 2000 regulations. That process includes referring any proposed amendments to the Northern Ireland Assembly for it to consider and report its views to the Secretary of State. The instrument was referred to the Assembly on 1 September, and the Assembly reported back on 14 September. A copy of its report and the debate is available to Committee members.
I thank all Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly for their contributions to that debate, which highlighted the broad spectrum of views on not only the draft regulations but important wider issues of identity and recognition of culture and identity in Northern Ireland. I was particularly struck by the moving words of Assembly Member Justin McNulty, who spoke about how communities at points past rallied together to support one another, even at the height of the troubles in the run-up to the agreement, and reflected that his community still shares that spirit of accommodation, driven by a recognition that the people of Northern Ireland live in a shared home place. The draft regulations are put forward with that spirit and recognition in mind.
The 2000 order also requires regard to be shown to the Belfast agreement when making or amending flags regulations. I am satisfied that the draft regulations, like the 2000 regulations they amend, comply with the Belfast agreement by reflecting Northern Ireland’s constitutional position as part of the United Kingdom in a balanced and proportionate manner. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
The Chair
Before I call the Opposition spokesperson, I remind the Committee that this is a tightly drawn debate. If hon. Members could reflect that in their contributions, I would be grateful. I call the shadow Minister.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. The Opposition support these regulations, which are part of a package of improvements, important developments, outlined in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. This comes on the back of the recent establishment of the veterans commissioner, whom my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State had the pleasure of meeting over in Belfast recently. These are important fulfilments of the key commitments that were made.
I have read the debate from Stormont, as has the Minister, who was mentioned in dispatches from there. My overriding sense of that debate was of the recognition that this is a shared space. We know that this is a controversial and difficult subject and that people are very keen to move forward. I would just gently say to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs that I recognise the spirit of his intervention, but in the context of the very different part of the United Kingdom that is Northern Ireland and the history and shared space, I think that we need to recognise and respect that this has been a difficult issue. It remains difficult, but the overriding theme of that debate was about the future and recognising that, as a society, people want to focus their time on the immediate crises and on building the economy after the pandemic. We know that waiting times for health services in Northern Ireland lagged behind those in the rest of the UK before the pandemic. Any further falling behind will only impair the tremendous progress that we have seen recently on some of the issues that divided people in the past.
In that vein, the New Decade, New Approach deal—it was done only this year, although it seems a long time ago—was hugely important, but clearly there is still a good deal that has not been moved forward. Could the Minister update us today on some of the sequencing around some of the issues that have been agreed? Members in Northern Ireland were concerned about the order in which some of them are coming forward, so I would be grateful if the Minister could outline the sequencing of the commitments under New Decade, New Approach, and inform the Committee of areas in which we still need to see some progress.
In particular, I would like to highlight the issues of language rights and identity, security funding, support for the institutions, and legacy. I understand, on language and identity, that much of this is to come forward from Stormont. It has the responsibility for developing the office. However, the underpinning legislation and the funding streams come from Westminster, and it would be helpful to have any indication about when the commissioners will be appointed and the funding envelope set aside for the creation of the office.
On security funding, it is vital that local policing is well resourced. I commend the success of the recent operation to disrupt and arrest the New IRA. That was an example of how important that work by the Police Service of Northern Ireland is. However, we need a longer-term strategy to support the PSNI on that. It has identified the need for 7,500 new officers, and that was reflected in the agreement, but it currently has only 6,900. The Assembly has passed a motion for additional funding for those officers. I know that the Minister does not need me to remind him of the difficulties that the Executive are facing, but security funding really is an urgent issue now. Could he address that?
On legacy, New Decade, New Approach was crystal clear that the Government would implement the Stormont House agreement within 100 days and would establish a broadly based consensus on the issues, with extensive engagement across the parties and with the Irish Government.
The Minister confirmed that it is still the Government’s intention, outlined just 10 months ago, to establish the institutions. The vacuum created by the statement of 18 March has served to destabilise the issue of legacy. I think that Members would welcome a clear indication of when the legislation will be brought forward and whether it will be established on the basis of the broad consensus that is needed.
Finally, on the support for institutions—
Karin Smyth
You can indeed, Mrs Miller. On that last issue, we would like to support the institutions in order that people can address the issues that are coming forward. As I have outlined, we support the regulations before the Committee, but we would gently warn the Minister not to take his eye off the ball on the full suite of commitments, of which this is an important part, and we would welcome an update on progress on the remaining issues.
Mr Walker
I thank the hon. Lady for her support for these regulations and her general remarks. In closing, I want to recognise that flag flying in Northern Ireland can sometimes be a divisive issue, as was reflected in the Assembly debate. The flag regulations of 2000 were introduced in response to a disagreement between Northern Ireland parties on observing designated days at Government buildings. I trust, however, that Members agree with me that the changes proposed by this particular instrument are balanced and proportionate in implementing this commitment from the New Decade, New Approach agreement. The number of designated flag-flying days listed in the regulations will not exceed those observed in the rest of the UK, while the addition of two specified buildings ensures consistency with the intent of the 2000 regulations.
The hon. Lady asked me for an update on a number of issues, and on sequencing. With regard to the language and identity proposals in New Decade, New Approach, we stand ready to support the Executive, but they do need to come forward with these measures themselves. The Government have made good progress on delivering a range of important commitments under NDNA, while absolutely recognising that we still have more to do. The hon. Lady mentioned the appointment of a veterans commissioner, something that I certainly welcome, and when parliamentary time allows, we are looking to introduce legislation giving effect to the agreed reforms to the petition of concern and to improve the sustainability of the institutions. We are continuing to engage with the Northern Ireland Executive in this regard, and I am pleased to be able to say that a meeting of the joint board, which comprises the Secretary of State, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, is scheduled today. That will be the joint board’s second meeting, and it is to take forward the delivery of NDNA commitments.
We will continue to work with the Executive on the full suite of commitments, including urging them to bring forward some of those that are within their own gift, such as the independent fiscal council, which we think does need to be a priority. Of course, that is in addition to the regular meetings that my Secretary of State holds with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. In the meantime, I am pleased to be delivering on this commitment on flag flying today, and I therefore commend this draft order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Persecution of Christians and Freedom of Religion or Belief
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new call list system and to ensure that social distancing can be respected. Members should sanitise their microphones, using the cleaning materials provided, before they use them, and should respect the one-way system around the room. Members should speak only from the horseshoe. Members may speak only if they are on the call lists. That applies even if debates are under-subscribed. Members may not join a debate if they are not on the call list. Members are not expected to remain for the winding-up speeches.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered progress on the Bishop of Truro’s independent review on persecution of Christians and freedom of religion or belief.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me the opportunity to have this Westminster Hall debate. As colleagues from across the House know, I led on the implementation of this report and on championing freedom of religion or belief as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. I led on this work across Government from September 2019 to September 2020. I stepped down from that role because of a policy difference with the Government. It was on a matter of principle regarding the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and my personal commitment to respecting the rule of law.
At the outset of this debate, I would like to thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for giving me a chance to serve as his special envoy covering issues of freedom of religion or belief, which are dear to my heart. I know that they are also dear to the Prime Minister’s heart, and he made FORB a top priority for the Government.
I came to this country in 1984 at the age of six and as the son of an imam. My family and I were able to practise our faith openly and freely and were welcomed with open arms in Gillingham. A moral duty on me, whether in Parliament, as envoy or in everyday life, is to stand up for the rights of individuals from minority faiths around the world, so that they are able to practise their faith or belief openly and freely, as I did in Gillingham and as I do now in my home towns of Gillingham and Rainham.
I am most grateful to His Grace Archbishop Ian Ernest, the director of the Anglican Centre in Rome, for pointing me towards Jeremiah 29: 4-8, from the Bible, which he said means, “You should welcome all people, regardless of colour, creed or background, to your city, and when you join that city, you work hard for co-existence in that city, so that the area prospers.” Gillingham accepted me with open arms, and my parents taught me the values of respect, kindness and individual responsibility, which helped to give me an opportunity to serve my home town as its Member of Parliament and a chance now to serve its community.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated at the time of my appointment:
“A staggering 83% of the world’s population live in nations where religious freedom is threatened or banned. It is an area where the UK can and must make a difference.”
Those were the words of our Foreign Secretary. According to a Pew Research Center report, 84% of the world’s population claim to identify themselves with a religion. I agree with the BBC’s chief international correspondent:
“If you don’t understand religion—including the abuse of religion—it’s becoming ever harder to understand our world.”
I thank the Prime Minister for his personal commitment during my time in office and for his keen interest in my work. For example, when I sent an update note to the Prime Minister on the work that I was doing, I got a note back saying, “The Prime Minister very much appreciates what you have put in the update note. Can you clarify point x?” One does not need to know what point x is; that shows the Prime Minister’s personal interest in the note that had gone in and that he wanted to know more about the work that was being done.
In 2018, the Prime Minister also personally supported my campaign for the UK Government to grant asylum to Asia Bibi, a Christian mother of five who was being persecuted in Pakistan for her faith, in an abuse of the blasphemy laws. I thank Members of Parliament from all parties for being absolutely amazing champions in promoting FORB in Parliament; I see them in Westminster Hall today.
I also thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for his personal support for my work as the Prime Minister’s special envoy. I thank him right from the outset for going to the extent, as the Minister knows, of saying that, as a special envoy, I was entitled to attend ministerial meetings on a Tuesday to give updates on FORB. The personal support that I received from him in this role was absolutely superb, and I thank him through the Minister; I have already thanked him personally, but I thank him again now.
Likewise, it was a real pleasure to work with Ministers from across the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on this top priority for the Government, and I thank all the excellent officials who I worked with on the FORB team at the Foreign Office.
I also personally thank four other individuals. Someone coming in as a special envoy is given a team of civil servants to work with, which is great, but I wanted experts, so I said that I would like to appoint my own four experts to advise me on delivering the 22 different recommendations. There is a recommendation on the United Nations Security Council resolution, which I will turn to later. I am not an expert on the United Nations Security Council, so who should I have appointed? I was very fortunate to have Sir Mark Lyall Grant, the United Kingdom’s former ambassador to the United Nations, a brilliant national security adviser and a former director general at the Foreign Office; I see the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), nodding with approval. Sir Mark is a brilliant former diplomat, so I was very lucky to have him on my advisory board.
I was also lucky to have Sir Malcolm Evans, a professor from the University of Bristol and a member of the Foreign Secretary’s advisory board on human rights, as well as Dr Naz Ghanea from Oxford University, who is brilliant on human rights and intersectionality on FORB issues and women’s issues across the board. Finally, I was fortunate to have Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, a former bishop in Pakistan and also Bishop of Rochester, so he covers all the jurisdictions and issues that face individuals.
I turn now to the report from the Bishop of Truro. As colleagues from all parties know, the Bishop of Truro’s independent review was commissioned by the previous Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), on 26 December 2018, to consider the persecution of Christians around the world. As I see it, the review was a direct response to wide-ranging reports that the suffering of Christians globally and especially that of Christian minorities is of such a scale and intensity that it can no longer be ignored by the Government or other actors. I thank my right hon. Friend the former Foreign Secretary for commissioning that report.
The review was carried out by the Bishop of Truro, Philip Mounstephen, and his team: Sir Charles Hoare, David Fieldsend and Rachael Varney. On 9 July 2019, Bishop Philip published his report, which made 22 recommendations. This Government, like the previous Government of Prime Minister May, accepted those 22 different recommendations in full.
I thank Bishop Philip for his excellent work and detailed report. As the report, which I have here with me, spells out on page 4:
“Across the globe, in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, Christians are being bullied, arrested, jailed, expelled and executed. Christianity is by most calculations the most persecuted religion of modern times.”
That is a statement from Bishop Philip, who was asked by our Government to carry out a report into the scale of persecution of Christians around the world.
One needs to look at the work and the data of excellent NGOs such as Open Doors, Christian Solidarity Worldwide and Aid to the Church in Need—to name just a few—that I had the real pleasure of meeting and interacting with, because best policy is made when we speak to, listen to and engage with people on the ground, and our NGOs do that.
I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers). She organised the Open Doors event that was attended by over 110 parliamentarians from across the House—Members of the Commons and Members of the Lords. That is why I say to the Government that in this Parliament the issue of religious freedom is a top priority among parliamentarians, and so is the delivery of this report, which I will shortly outline.
It would not be fair of me if I did not refer to what Bishop Philip said on page 7 of his report. He wrote:
“To argue for special pleading for one group over another would be antithetical to the Christian tradition. It would also, ironically, expose that group to greater risk. We must seek FoRB for all, without fear or favour.”
The report and its recommendations, which I was taking forward for the Government, were designed to protect and stand up for freedom of religion or belief for all.
For me, freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental right for everyone. It is crucial for a peaceful, prosperous, virtuous society as well as being a national security priority. When I came in, I split the delivery of the different recommendations into short-term, medium-term and long-term deliverability, after I had consulted Bishop Philip. I had the report and I asked myself the question, “What is behind this report and these recommendations?” I met Bishop Philip to ask, “How can we take these forward? Why did you come up with that recommendation? What did you have in mind when you designed that recommendation?” His advice and counsel, from the outset and throughout, has been outstanding.
There were challenges during the year. We had a general election, which meant we were away from Parliament for a bit, and there was covid-19. From March, covid-19 meant that resources and officials working on this area were deployed elsewhere, to a certain extent, and rightly so. They were dealing with covid-19 and making sure that our citizens were brought back from different parts of the world. I thank the Foreign Secretary and Foreign Minister for doing a great job and getting 1.2 million of our citizens back to the UK.
On 13 September 2020, after one year in office, 17 of the Truro recommendations were either fully implemented or progressed. How did I come up with those 17 recommendations? It is important to have accountability. In July this year, we had a new head of freedom of religious belief, Juliet, a brilliant official tasked with overseeing all of the FORB work. I asked her to review every aspect of the work that I led on, because there needed to be accountability for my work.
I asked Juliet to look at the different recommendations across the board because by July, when I gave evidence to the yearly review with Bishop Truro, there were 11 recommendations that may have been classed as moving forward into the category of implemented or fully implemented, but I wanted someone to independently look at that. On 7 September, Juliet, as the head of FORB, and said that 17 recommendations could be classed as fully implemented or progressed.
I will touch on some of those recommendations now. Recommendation 1 says:
“Ensure FoRB…alongside other human rights and values, is central to FCO operation,”
and talks about a “Diplomatic Code.” When I read the report, my first question was. “What do we mean by a diplomatic code? Bishop Philip, what do you mean by a diplomatic code?” He said, “It is an internal working programme for the Foreign Office.” It provides overarching objectives for the Foreign Office.
I then met the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office and said, “This is the recommendation. This is what is designed to be delivered. Can we look at how we take this forward?” He said, “Rehman, one of the objectives we have at the Foreign Office at the moment is promoting freedom of religion or belief for all.” In the Foreign Secretary’s evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee last week, he gave a three-winged approach on freedoms—FORB freedom, media freedom and Magnitsky sanctions. On the framework, I asked officials to come back by December with a recommendation of how it could be taken forward.
The next recommendation will take a bit of time, Mr Hollobone, but it is important that I cover it for Members. It says:
“Articulate an aspiration to be the global leader in championing FoRB”.
That is crucial. It is a top priority for our Government, but what have we actually done to make it a top priority? How have we interacted with others around the world?
When I advised the Government, it was a delight to join the International Religious Freedom Alliance as a founding member in 2020. The IRFA is an organisation of like-minded states that respect freedom of religion or belief, as in article 18 of the declaration of human rights. It was launched in Washington by Secretary of State Pompeo with over 20 members from states around the world. I had the pleasure of representing the United Kingdom at that meeting.
I pay tribute to Sam Brownback, United States ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom. He had a vision of creating an international alliance that could take swift, quick and appropriate action with like-minded partners, and he made it a reality by getting the alliance set up. It has done work on covid-19 and the challenge that we face. We sit here in Parliament representing constituencies. Our constituents have faced challenges and difficulties, but some citizens around the world have suffered more than others under covid-19 for being a member of a religious minority. So what has the alliance been doing?
The alliance helped religious prisoners of conscience in Yemen and worked to get prisoners of conscience in the Baha’i community released. In Eritrea, religious prisoners of conscience were released. On speaking to Ambassador Brownback at the weekend, I learnt that 1,679 religious prisoners of conscience in Uzbekistan have been released with the direct involvement of the alliance and the work of Ambassador Sam Brownback, and it would be unfair of me not to mention the work of the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Ahmed Shaheed. I thank them all.
Before I stepped down I was fortunate to be the vice-chairman of the international alliance, having helped to create it, and the members had asked if I would serve as co-vice-chair with Ambassador Jos Douma from the Netherlands, who did a terrific job on the campaign to get the Baha’is released in Yemen. Another issue that we faced was how to get like-minded countries to make a statement on the persecution of individuals around the world, and there was a covid-19 statement from 18 countries.
I must highlight what minorities around the world have faced during covid-19. First, some Governments have used the pandemic to further repress religious minorities. Secondly, religious minorities are often discriminated against when it comes to the provision of food, aid and healthcare. Thirdly, some religious minorities are being blamed for the spread of covid-19 and are targeted as a result. Fourthly, online propaganda campaigns are targeting religious minorities. Fifthly, technology is being used to further repress, discriminate or surveil religious minorities. That is why the United Kingdom alone cannot make a difference. We have to work with like-minded partners through multilateral fora, which is what the alliance did. I want to give a huge thanks to Professor Mariz Tadros from CREID, the Coalition for Religious Equality and Inclusive Development, who recently covered that point at the G20.
CREID has been doing vital work on covid-19 and the scapegoating of religious minorities in countries such as India, Pakistan and Iraq. In Pakistan, CREID provided poor sanitation workers, predominantly from Christian backgrounds, with awareness training around personal protective equipment. As well as providing the equipment, CREID conducted advocacy activities with the Government around the right to dignity, respect and protection.
I see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) sitting to my right. His report on minorities in Pakistan and his visit with Lord Alton was absolutely superb. I thank him from the bottom of my heart for what he does day in, day out, and for what he has done throughout his career in Parliament. I also thank his colleagues on the APPG. I have a small example. When I was the envoy and I needed to know what was going on, I used to have Twitter alerts from the APPG to find out what was going on. The guys on the APPG were absolutely brilliant. Also, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for her report on minorities in Pakistan.
On the canonisation of St John Henry Newman, a great British saint who made a global impact, we were at the Holy See. We had an APPG delegation there at the time. We also had His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales leading the United Kingdom delegation. We had two Secretaries of State representing the United Kingdom Government and we had the Prime Minister’s special envoy. I thank our brilliant ambassador to the Holy See, Sally Axworthy, for the way in which the celebrations were conducted. If colleagues have not had a chance to read His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales’s October 2019 article in The Tablet on interfaith at the time of the canonisation of St John Henry Newman, I strongly suggest that they do, and I thank him for his work on interfaith dialogue. I will come to the Minister in due course.
For the UK to be a leader on FORB prompts the question of whether the United Kingdom will host the international ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief. I went to the United States and said, “Hey, the United Kingdom would like to host that conference.” Other countries wanted to do it, but the United States said that the United Kingdom could do it. We decided on 2021 for the full conference, but then the decision came back and officials said, “It will be in 2021, but I understand that given covid-19, COP26 is being moved to 2022. Would you do it?” I did not think we should have a virtual semi-conference; there should be a full conference. I spoke to counterparts in the United States to ask whether another country could step in in 2021, and the United Kingdom in 2022. The Foreign Secretary accepted my advice. It would be great if the Minister could say exactly when in 2022 the United Kingdom will host that conference.
Recommendation 2 was for the United Kingdom to:
“Advocate that member states introduce a Special Envoy position for FoRB”.
The first country that I visited as the envoy, on transit to the Holy See, was Bahrain, a Muslim-majority country that has a good track record on interfaith, mutual co-existence. It has had a Hindu temple for 200 years and churches for over 100 years. The vicar from my constituency, Reverend Chris Butt, had been the vicar at St Christopher’s Cathedral in Bahrain just prior to my visit. I asked His Majesty King Hamad whether Bahrain would appoint a special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. I was pleased that one of the last meetings that I had in my official capacity was with the Foreign Minister of Bahrain in early September and he said, “His Majesty has considered your request, and Bahrain will appoint a special envoy for freedom of religion or belief in due course.”
Recommendation 3 is to
“Name the phenomenon of Christian discrimination”.
The decision on that recommendation was not made by the envoy. Research was allocated to Archbishop Angaelos of the Coptic Christian Church. Through the John Bunyan fund for freedom of religion and belief, 15 projects were given money to conduct research on FORB. He put forward a submission, and he has a strong track record on freedom of religion or belief. The research was carried out by his team, and I hear that there were mixed representations. Some want a name for the phenomenon of Christian persecution, and some do not, but the recommendation was from Archbishop Angaelos, not me as the envoy. The key thing from him was saying that there should be a recognition of the phenomenon of Christian persecution. I accept that the most persecuted faith in the world is the Christian faith, and we should advocate our policy with that in mind.
Recommendation 4 is
“to gather reliable information and data on FoRB to better inform the development of international policy.”
I am pleased to say that recommendation 4 is another that has been adopted and is now part of business as usual at the Foreign Office. Research continues, but let me say this: various projects funded by the John Bunyan fund, which I will discuss in greater detail, will also feed into the delivery of recommendation 4. Furthermore, I was delighted to meet representatives of the Religious Freedom Institute in Washington earlier this year. With the help of the funding from the FCDO Magna Carta fund, it has developed a highly sophisticated online tool to gather simple, meaningful, accessible, reliable and timely smart data on religious freedom landscapes across the globe. That is how we got the data from the work with the RFI, and the strategy that was applied. The smart tool collects data in 17 countries and aims to focus on collecting detail in a very localised way.
CREID has also produced some excellent work in this area, including a working paper titled “Humanitarian and Religious Inequalities: Addressing a Blind Spot”, which discusses religious inequalities being blind in humanitarian frameworks and how humanitarian actors can incorporate sensitivity to religious difference and persecution into their programmes.
Recommendation 5 would:
“Bolster research into the critical intersection of FoRB and minority rights”
and gender issues. Again, I pay tribute to CREID and I thank the Government for allocating in 2018 via DFID £12 million for research into security, economic activity and religious hate content online. The CREID paper “Invisible Targets of Hatred: Socioeconomically Excluded Women from Religious Minority Backgrounds” addresses the intersection of religious, gender, social, economic, ethnic and geographic marginalities affecting women who belong to religious minorities in six contexts. CREID has also been working on countering hate speech online, which can often have severe violent consequences in real time. If colleagues have not seen it, the research is available in documents such as the ones I have here. It is crucial that that research is taken into account when Foreign Office officials, and those who were in DFID, make policy.
Recommendation 6 would establish permanently the role of the special envoy. Peter Jones was appointed a director-level champion on FORB and he did a terrific job and I thank him for his support. Based on my experience, my advice to the Government, as we look to appoint a new envoy, is to consider how we make the post most effective. The Minister is terrific; he is a great Minister. However, the work on FORB and the Truro review is led by an envoy, and an envoy does not have the authority to shape or make policy; an envoy does not have the authority to come before Parliament to answer questions on why certain decisions have been taken on certain countries; an envoy may pick up an issue on the alliance and try to put it through the system, but he does not have the authority for political or policy steering. Therefore, my advice to the Government and to whoever comes in next is to give the role the maximum authority possible by ensuring that that person has that authority and is answerable to Parliament. When I was the envoy, I used to read all the debates introduced by Members, and it was a pleasure to read them. If whoever comes in as the Government’s key lead on FORB, they should have the authority to be accountable to Parliament for the decisions that they make about different countries.
Recommendation 7 would:
“Ensure that there are mechanisms in place to facilitate an immediate response to atrocity crimes, including genocide”
and would set up an early-warning system. I was advised by the FORB team that the United Kingdom already has a strategy to deal with early-warning signs and genocide but I refer colleagues to the speech made by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) in the previous Westminster Hall debate led by the hon. Member for Strangford. It was a powerful speech and highlighted the need to get the early-warning system right. In the seventh paragraph of his speech in the debate on the large-scale persecution of religious or racial minorities on 12 March, the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) highlighted the issues that lead to intolerance and hatred going to their ultimate extent.
The work on the subject is being undertaken by the FORB team and a note was to reach the envoy in December. However, the alliance is crucial as part of that thematic work that I advised the Government to join. The occurrence of mass atrocities targeting members of religious and ethnic minority groups has highlighted the need for greater co-ordination among countries and a more robust response whether atrocities are perpetrated by state actors, such as Myanmar against the Rohingyas, or by non-state actors, such as in Iraq by Daesh. The alliance can serve as the mechanics to mobilise a response based on the principles of action in the joint declaration of principles. That is the vision but before we do that, we can still work together to share good practice.
Recommendation 9 is to be prepared to impose sanctions. I thank our sanctions team. Before we had the designations in July, Bishop Philip and I met the sanctions team at the Foreign Office so that he could explain recommendation 7. There was a FORB perspective on the designations and in the first designations were two Myanmar generals. I read the debate on 12 October on China’s policy on the Uyghur people and seen the United States’ position on the sanctioning of individuals for the way the Uyghurs have been treated in Xinjiang province. As a parliamentarian, do I think the line has been crossed for the United Kingdom to designate individuals in line with what the United States has done to members of the Chinese Communist party? The answer is yes. In this Parliament, Government needs to take into account the views of parliamentarians. As the envoy, I saw debate after debate: a freedom of religion debate on 12 March, 10 October and 6 February, and the debate on 12 October 2020 on China’s policy on its Uyghur population. That debate says it all.
The United Kingdom has a moral obligation to do the right thing and stand up for our global values: democracy, rule of law and liberty. That means taking that decisive, appropriate action. I know the Government have done that in Belarus with sanctions on certain individuals, but my question to the Government now is: why wait? We took the decision and, on my understanding, designations were supposed to be every few months. We took an exceptional decision on Belarus, and rightly so. Why are we not taking that decision on the Uyghur situation in China? My understanding of the Magnitsky sanctions is that, as global Britain, we are working with our like-minded partners Canada and the United States. The United States has designated individuals from the Chinese Communist party on the sanctions list, with visa restrictions, export restrictions, a ban on exporting to the US and business advice to US companies, cautioning businesses about the reputational, economic and legal risk. As such, I say to the Minister that the United Kingdom should quickly and swiftly do the right thing. Our great parliamentarian William Wilberforce is quoted on page 6 of Bishop Truro’s report:
“You may choose to look the other way, but you can never again say you did not know”.
On that recommendation, future designations always need to consider FORB and I ask the Government to make that decision on exceptional grounds, quickly and swiftly.
Recommendation 10 is for
“The Foreign Secretary to write to FCO funded ‘arm’s length’ bodies”.
I am pleased to say the Foreign Secretary wrote to the Westminster Foundation, Wilton Park and the British Council: done, done and done. I also highlight something crucial to colleagues: the Foreign Office-produced reports on conferences on protecting vulnerable religious minorities in conflict; promotion of freedom of religion or belief; tackling violence committed in the name of religion; and fostering social cohesion in Nigeria. Nigeria will come up in the debate, and colleagues may highlight that. When I was the envoy, I said to officials “Let’s have a Wilton Park conference on Nigeria” and we had that. The documents are superb and highlight the United Kingdom and the Foreign Office’s commitment and good practice and I ask colleagues that we move forward in that.
The next recommendation is number 11, to ensure
“both general and contextual training in religious literacy”.
When I first came into office, that was one of my first goals. Unless our diplomats have the right training across the board, how do they pick up the issues of intolerance, hatred and non-violent extremism that lead to violent extremism? We need to make sure our diplomats have that. We have some of the best diplomats in the world; I have worked with them. However, they need to be given the right tools.
When I came in, there was some support through the LSE programme. Now, there is a Cambridge module on religious literacy. However, tying in with recommendation 13 to
“deliver tailored responses to FoRB violations at Post level”,
I have a recommendation for the Government. When I came in there were four priority countries, but I say there should be 13 review countries. How do you identify a review country? I asked Sir Mark Lyall Grant, our former ambassador—I am running close on time, but I shall be very brief in my summing up. Review countries are based on where the most significant infringement on FORB is taking place and where the United Kingdom can make the most impact on it. I wrote to 24 different missions with a view to getting 13 put into that category. We could, then, ensure that the diplomats going to those 13 countries had that tailored support.
Recommendation 14:
“Ensure FCO human rights reporting”.
I am pleased to say that the annual human rights report covers freedom of religion or belief in that regard.
Recommendation 17 is for
“The FCO to convene a working group for government departments and civil society”
to engage. I am pleased to say that the FORB forum, chaired by Bishop Truro, has recently been established by a diverse group of human rights NGOs, civil society organisations and faith groups. The UK FORB forum is a mechanism for civil society actors to engage with HM Government on the issue and ensure that egregious violations in both individual cases and systematic abuses are looked at. I thank Bishop Philip and the civil society organisations for coming forward.
Among the final recommendations I want to cover, one concerns the annual event in support of the UN international day on victims of religious violence. The United Kingdom supported Poland at the UN on that, and carried out a Red Wednesday event, with Aid to the Church in Need. Buildings across Government Departments were lit in red. I spoke about that at Westminster Cathedral.
Recommendation 20 is for the United Kingdom to secure a Security Council resolution on FORB. When I first came into office I advised and spoke to No. 10 and the Foreign Secretary, and I spoke to and got a note back from our mission in New York on a strategy to take forward that recommendation. I gave the Foreign Secretary an update note on that in July. I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for accepting my advice on the strategy to take that recommendation forward. Before I left, that matter was on my desk. The United Kingdom has the Security Council presidency in February next year and I would like confirmation that the United Kingdom will move that motion then.
I am grateful to colleagues for their amazing support and their championing of FORB, and I look forward to working with them on this again as a parliamentarian.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I am obliged to call the Front-Bench spokespeople no later than 10.31, which gives us 24 minutes of Back-Bench time, so I am going to impose a four-minute limit so that we can get the contributions of the six Members in. The Scottish National party spokesman has generously volunteered to limit his contribution to six minutes, but the guideline limits for Her Majesty’s Opposition and the Minister are 10 minutes each, with two or three minutes at the end for Mr Chishti to sum up the debate.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Hollobone, and to speak in this extremely important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) for the work that he has completed already. I am sure that he will continue to be an assiduous advocate in Parliament of freedom of religious belief. He has spoken of detailed and extensive work, and it is heartening to be shown how much work has been happening. It has been heartening, I am sure, for people in my constituency, to hear of the progress being made; but what the hon. Gentleman said also provided an outline for the Government of the important recommendations that need to be taken forward.
I want to thank the organisations that work in this space: Open Doors, Aid to the Church in Need, and Christian Solidarity Worldwide, to name just a few. I also thank other hon. Members here today, who are familiar faces from the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief—particularly, of course, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who works tirelessly on the issue.
In much of the world, freedom of religion is, indeed, the linchpin on which other freedoms rest—such as the freedom to congregate, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. Those rights are interdependent and absolutely inseparable. That is one of the reasons why the issue should be seen as such a priority for Government. It is not just because of the faith groups that depend so heavily on Government to champion those freedoms, across the United Kingdom; it is also for the whole of society, because the other rights that non-religious groups and other organisations depend on rest solidly on the foundation that has been set.
In the couple of minutes I have, I want to focus particularly on Nigeria. I understand that Fulani militants have carried out multiple raids on villages in Kaduna and Plateau States. Thirty-two Christians who were obeying directives to stay at home during the humanitarian disaster of covid, to prevent the spread of the virus, were targeted in attempts to uproot the Christian community from the area. Open Doors recorded one local Christian who said:
“If people are going to stay in their homes during the COVID-19 pandemic, they need to feel safe from attacks like this.”
I think we can echo that sentiment.
Open Doors notes that there is an urgent need to engage with representatives of organisations that work to secure freedom of religious belief in places such as Nigeria, where persecuted Christians are incredibly vulnerable—that was highlighted in the recent APPG report, “Nigeria: Unfolding Genocide?”—and where the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office still refuses fully to recognise the religious dimension of the conflict. I urge the Minister to focus on those issues and work with excellent organisations such as Open Doors to take these matters forward.
I wanted to speak about Pakistan; I dare say that I will not have enough time to do so, but I can perhaps send the Minister a letter about that. I pay tribute to the work of all across our constituencies in the United Kingdom who champion these issues in their work, and who provide such support for those who are in need internationally.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) for his tremendous work. The energy and commitment that he has brought to the role of Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief will be a hard act to follow, whoever is appointed to succeed him. We all owe him a deep debt of gratitude.
We have heard much from my hon. Friend about the progress that has been made in applying the recommendations of the Bishop of Truro’s report. I want to focus on one of those recommendations—recommendation 7, which makes reference to the crime above all crimes: genocide. In Article II of the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, to which we are a signatory, genocide is defined as,
“acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.
Recommendation 7 has two important components. The first is on early warning monitoring and the second concerns the determination of genocide.
Sadly, over many decades now, through many atrocities in different parts of the globe, both in this country and as part of the wider international community, we have all too often failed to take note of genocide and to address it until it is too late. From the suffering of the Armenians in Turkey a hundred years ago, through the holocaust, the genocide in Rwanda, the suffering of the Rohingya Muslims in Burma, the Yazidis in Syria and Iraq, and the Uyghurs in China today, too often—indeed, invariably—religious minorities are part of the equation when crimes against humanity and genocide occur.
As the report says, genocidal actions against Christians are high on the agenda of concern. The report contains a quote from Rabbi Jonathan Sacks:
“The persecution of Christians throughout much of the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, [and] elsewhere is one of the crimes against humanity of our time.”
Yet, as I say, we fail to hold perpetrators to account or recognise genocide. The UK does not have comprehensive early warning monitoring mechanisms and does not engage in genocide determination. Without that, we fail to trigger our duty under the convention. As a signatory to that convention, we are required to act to prevent genocide and to protect those affected, but only if there is a judicial determination of genocide. It was a sad failure in 2016, when I was privileged to bring a motion to the House on this issue, that we failed to persuade the Government to act, even though that determination was passed by a majority—indeed, unanimously.
How do we break this circular argument that only the courts can determine genocide, and without that we cannot refer this internationally? In recent years, one way in which Lord Alton in the Lords and I in the Commons have endeavoured to do that is through our private Members’ Bills, the Genocide Determination Bills, which provide for the High Court to make a preliminary finding on cases of genocide where, for example, an affected group refers a matter to it. That would facilitate a referral of such a finding to the International Criminal Court.
The Trade Bill is being discussed in the Lords—this is the single point that I want to make today—and amendment 76A, which takes proposals from the Genocide Determination Bill, requires that if a referral for a declaration of genocide is made to the High Court by a representative of a religious or ethnic group, for example, the Court must consider it and make a determination. Any trade agreement would then have to be voided if a signatory to it is a partner that has perpetrated genocide. I urge the Government to support the amendment.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), the special envoy for religious freedom for the UK, for securing this important Westminster Hall debate. I and many of my Christian constituents, and indeed members of all faiths in Coventry North West, were pleased when we were told that there would be a long-overdue independent review into the persecution of Christians and the freedom of religion and belief. I stand here representing Christians in my constituency, and I denounce the human rights abuses facing Christians in Thailand, China, India and other places across the globe.
Earlier this year, I met a constituent from an organisation called the International Asian Christian Front, which supports and advocates for persecuted Christians in Pakistan and India. They expressed concerns that covid-19-related assistance is not going into predominantly Christian religious bodies in this country. Discrimination and attempts to deprive people, on the basis of their religion, of the health assistance they need in a pandemic are unconscionable, and I am sure that the Minister and hon. Members agree. At such a precarious time, when we should be banding together in solidarity and support, swathes of our society are being left to fend for themselves simply because they adhere to a different faith.
I am sure the Minister will join me in paying tribute to Open Doors, which provides support and assistance to persecuted Christians across the world. I am proud to support it. It shines a light on the Christians who face injustice and discrimination on the basis of their faith, and it ensures that Members of this House are aware of and can lend their support to those who need it most.
I welcome the Government’s pace in implementing the Bishop of Truro’s 22 recommendations. Will the Minister outline when they will be implementing the remaining recommendations? Will he also tell me what they are doing to support persecuted Christians who are being denied food aid in Bangladesh and India during the pandemic, nurses in the Gulf who have been denied personal protective equipment, and those who have reportedly been attacked during lockdown in Nigeria? For my Christian constituents of Asian heritage, will he tell me what the Government are doing to support Asian Christians in the UK who do not have a church or community centre to call their own?
In everything we do as representatives in this place, we must work towards promoting and building cohesion among all religious groups in the UK and across the world so that we can navigate this crisis as one, and come out the other end better than we entered it.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your stewardship for the first time, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) for the great energy, intellect and compassion he has brought to this subject and his role as the Prime Minister’s envoy on freedom of religion.
I think we all agree that one of the cornerstones of the United Kingdom is our fundamental belief in the individual’s right to live freely without fear, threat or harm, regardless of whether it is from other individuals or the state. Freedom of thought and belief is perhaps the most fundamental right, and sadly the one that is most at peril around the world. It truly saddens and pains me to witness the rise of persecution based on religious belief. It has been estimated that one third of the population of the globe suffers from religious persecution, in whatever heinous form it takes.
In absolute terms, Christians are the most persecuted of those groups, and they have been subject to violence, extrajudicial killings, involuntary disappearances, social persecution, the suppression of public expression and attempts to cleanse regions of religious belief over a prolonged period. Sadly, during my time living in Pakistan in support of the Pakistani army and Pakistani state on behalf of the British and American Governments, I saw the deep link, which was referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham, between religious exclusion and inequality and extremism, violent extremism and terrorism. It is clearly there.
Unfortunately in Pakistan, martial law ordinance XX, which was first promulgated to be used against Ahmadis, is increasingly being employed to persecute Christians. Across the middle east, the birthplace of Christianity, the persecution of Christians is seen at its very worst. One hundred years ago, Christians made up at least 20% of the population across the middle east and north Africa. Today, that stands at a meagre 4%.
Sadly, in many countries it is the state that drives prejudice and discrimination against its Christian citizens. In Egypt, Iran and Syria, church properties and properties owned by Christians are confiscated or outright attacked, and restricting Christians’ access to their places of worship is common. In Iran and Turkey, incitement to hatred against Christians has been observed on state-sponsored media. Turkey’s Christians have been portrayed as “not real Turks”, and various campaigns smearing their beliefs have also been run. In China, the Communist party seeks to control what its citizens think and to inhibit their ability to feel and believe. That is not only the case for Uyghur Muslims; Uyghur Christians are also being interred and persecuted.
These regimes not only violate the sacred value of freedom of religious belief but encourage non-state actors to violate that freedom. That is a violation of what Britain and decent, right-minded people everywhere cherish, champion and fight for. As we redetermine our place in the world following Brexit, a key part of global Britain must be defending the values that underpin our society—namely pluralism, tolerance, diversity and individual liberties—wherever they may be assaulted. Standing up to these nations and protecting the rights of individuals to live, work and worship as they please will be vital. I am greatly appreciative of the Bishop of Truro’s report’s shining a light on countries that fail to do so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) on securing the debate. My wife just texted me. We have a new grandchild, who was born at 11.50 pm last night. We are up to five now. Perhaps the Shannons will be able on their own to vote their grandfather into Parliament once again—I hope that I will be elected by more votes than that, but that is by the way. I am pleased to speak in the debate. I declare an interest as chair of both the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief and the all-party parliamentary group for the Pakistani minorities.
I put on the record my thanks to the hon. Gentleman for his tireless work. His door has always been open for a meeting, and his responses have always been excellent. I thank him for that. I will do as he did and start off with a Scripture text, from Romans 8:35, which asks, “Who shall separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus? Shall tribulation, distress or persecution? No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.”
Covid-19 has exacerbated the plight of Christians and other religious minorities across the world, because they get blamed for the virus and for spreading it. I will speak up for the Jewish community, who have faced dramatic increases in antisemitic hate speech as a result of covid-19. The office of special envoy for freedom of religion or belief is so important. The Prime Minister has not appointed anybody to that post yet; I hope he will soon.
I put to the Minister the need for all the recommendations of the Bishop of Truro’s review to be implemented fully. Recommendation 11 is to do with making sure that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office staff who work in countries have the necessary training and can make the most of their resources to address these violations. I encourage FCDO to incorporate civil society evidence submissions into their human rights and democracy report-writing process.
It is important to have that focus from the Department—I know it is there, and I am happy that the Minister will confirm this, because I want it on the record—on the Baha’is, Shias, Hindus, Armenians, Rohingyas, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Ahmadis, Muslims and Coptic Christians in all countries, but particularly in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Egypt. The focus is very much on the middle east, which I have had the opportunity to visit on occasion.
I also ask the UK Government to implement recommendation 8, which is to be
“prepared to impose sanctions against perpetrators of FoRB abuses.”
The right of freedom of belief is enshrined in article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights.
In the case of China, we have often talked about the Uyghur Muslims, but there are also the Tibetan Buddhists, with over half a million labourers detained in camps in the first seven months of 2020 alone. The Chinese Government have also cracked down on other religious groups: they have destroyed churches and harassed, imprisoned and intimidated Christians. Even small church groups have been under terrible threat, and, worse still, the independent China Tribunal found that there was forced organ harvesting of prisoners of conscience: that is Christians, Uyghur Muslims, Falun Gong and others. We really do have to grab China—in a nice way—by the lapels and tell it to get into line.
What can we ask the Minister to do in relation to that? I support amendment 68 to the Trade Bill, to which the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) referred. I confirm to the Minister that we are asking for pressure to be put on China. What is happening about that? We have to address the face of evil that China is, so that we can change things. While we may look forward to the future, I pray and beseech that we make the right decision, and that our grandchildren will look at us and say, “You spoke up when you should have done.”
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) for all his tireless work on this cause and for having secured this debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and congratulate him on the birth of his grandchild, who will, I am sure, bring much happiness.
I read with concern the deeply depressing final report submitted by the Bishop of Truro, which set out in stark terms the persecution faced by Christians around the world. It seems perverse that Christians face greater oppression now than at any other point in recent history. It is also an uncomfortable reality that the persecution of Christians is largely unacknowledged by leading Governments, for various reasons, but while we prevaricate, Christians across the globe are being attacked, harassed and killed because of their religious beliefs. As Members will know, I believe freedom of religion to be a central pillar of our civic society. As a Catholic, I can see the ways in which people of Christian faith enrich discourse and dialogue in the United Kingdom every single day. However, in many countries, Christians are regarded with suspicion, contempt, and often outright hostility.
The persecution of Roman Catholics in Pakistan and the People’s Republic of China are crimes that I have been following closely. Maira Shahbaz, a 14-year-old Catholic girl in Pakistan, was recently abducted, raped, married to her abductor, and forcibly converted to Islam. She is now on the run and at risk of being killed. This is a disgusting situation. Regrettably, Pakistan’s recent record of protecting religious minorities, including Christians, is woeful. I understand that Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon raised freedom of religion or belief with Pakistan’s Minister for Human Rights and with the Governor of Punjab, but I urge the Government to keep up the pressure on our Pakistani counterparts to ensure that authorities there seek justice for Maira, and guarantee her future safety.
In the People’s Republic of China, the Chinese Communist party is waging the most severe, systematic suppression of Christianity in that country for decades. In the past few years, the CCP has been destroying crosses, burning Bibles, shutting churches and ordering followers to sign papers renouncing their faith. Only state-approved Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association churches are allowed to exist, and Catholics have been driven underground at great personal cost. It is no wonder, then, that the Holy See recognises the Republic of China as being the true representative of China: Catholics can worship freely and openly in Taiwan, but not in the PRC. Many Catholics are worried that the renewal of the secretive agreement between China and the Church damages Rome’s moral authority and puts Catholics in danger through its acquiescence to Beijing’s terms. I entreat this Government to work with the Vatican and the PRC to stop the oppression of Catholics, and to legalise the Church in that country.
Set against that background, the Bishop of Truro’s review was welcome and timely, and the Government’s commitment to its recommendations will bring real improvements to the lives of those persecuted because of their faith. I am pleased to note that more than half of the recommendations have already been implemented, or are in the process of being implemented. I am particularly encouraged by the creation of a UK global human rights sanctions regime, responding to the recommendations in the report that we must impose sanctions against those who persecute Christians. Furthermore, the launch of the John Bunyan Fund for Freedom of Religion and Belief has funded 15 research projects to look at the challenges facing different religious communities among those Christians. That is great progress.
The Government should visibly and robustly stand up for the rights of Christians everywhere. We must face down oppression wherever we find it and protect the world’s most vulnerable, regardless of race, background or creed. I pray for my fellow Christians and will continue to fight for them in this House.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) on securing the debate and on all his work as the Prime Minister’s special envoy. I also pay tribute to Mervyn Thomas, who stood down earlier this year as chief executive of Christian Solidarity Worldwide. He served that organisation with distinction for 40 years. Most of us who work in the field of FORB know what a titan Mervyn Thomas is in the field. I am sure I speak on behalf of all hon. Members in wishing him well for whatever comes next.
This debate has been excellent, with contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) and the hon. Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford).
In my time as an MP, the issue of religious freedom has been close to my heart and to the hearts of my constituents. However, an image has stuck with me from before my time as an MP. In 2011, in Egypt’s Tahrir Square, Christians formed a human shield around Muslims who were on their hands and knees praying. For me, that is the essence of what freedom of religion and belief is all about: when people of different faiths or no faith whatsoever come together in respecting each other and upholding that freedom.
That is not just a romantic idea; it is enshrined in the United Nations universal declaration of human rights, which states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right, which we should all honour and protect. As a Scottish National party MP, I am not often proud to be a Westminster MP, but this is one of the few occasions when we come together and affirm our absolute belief in that freedom.
During the 2019 Backbench Business debate on this topic, I offered my support and that of my party for the Bishop of Truro’s report and all its recommendations. We, like others, are committed to ensuring that religious freedom is observed around the globe and that the report’s recommendations are implemented in full in order to attain that goal.
As the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham set out, 17 out of 22 of the report’s recommendations have been, or are in the process of being, implemented. All hon. Members want them to be implemented as quickly as possible. However, no one has been named as a replacement for the hon. Gentleman as the Prime Minister’s special envoy. It is a crucial role and I urge the Government to fill the position as soon as possible, to ensure that this vital work can continue.
As a nationalist MP, I appreciate that the Prime Minister is unlikely to take advice from me, and probably rightly so. However, I advise the Government, in all sincerity, that if they choose to appoint another MP as the special envoy, they should seriously consider the hon. Member for Strangford, who does so much work in this field. There are examples of Members of other parties being appointed as special envoys. I ask the Minister to take that suggestion back to the Prime Minister. The hon. Member for Strangford is a champion in this field and would be an excellent candidate for the post.
Covid-19 has negatively impacted on Christian communities across the globe, with persecution continuing during this public health crisis. I have continued to work closely with Christian Solidarity Worldwide during the pandemic and have been in touch with one of its contacts in Uttar Pradesh, India. The contact, who shall remain anonymous for their safety, informed me of violent attacks that have taken place against Christians worshipping. I was told that there were 60 cases of persecution in 2019 and that a further 45 cases had already occurred by September this year, even with covid-19 lockdown measures in place.
My contact also described how some police officers in the region have been biased against the Christian community. It is often a lottery as to which police officer receives the call and, therefore, how those Christians who are worshipping will be treated. For example, if the officer is sympathetic to the Christian faith, they will respond to the call; if not, there is often no response to the attack, meaning that violent criminals often go without punishment.
I know that the Government are probably fed up of hearing me complain about the situation in India, but we have to take stock of the fact that this is the world’s largest democracy, with an emerging middle class, but it is rising rapidly up the world watch list. I once again ask the Government to ensure that they raise this with the authorities in India. Around the globe, everyone should be free to worship without fear of persecution. It is vital that the Government do everything in their power to condemn violent attacks against those worshipping, and work together to protect freedom of religion.
I am glad that the hon. Members for Congleton and for Strangford, and others, referred to the Trade Bill. There is no doubt that, as the United Kingdom becomes global Britain and tries to find a new space on the world stage, it has an opportunity to ensure that these issues are not missed out in trade negotiations. I appreciate that in a trade negotiation we do not want to raise things that will perhaps be controversial, but we should never lose sight of the fact that freedom of religion or belief and human rights should be at the top of the agenda.
We are faced with a unique moment in history. Between Brexit talks and the pandemic, it is vital that we continue to protect human rights and freedom of religion. It is crucial that during the crisis we continue to work towards ensuring that the persecution of all religions, and of those who have no religion at all, ends and that everyone around the globe is free to worship without fear. At the unique moment of history in which we find ourselves we cannot lose sight of the values that mean the most to us, including the core belief that absolutely everyone should have the freedom to worship without fear.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank everybody for their incredibly strong and passionate contributions, as I would expect from the Members present. I commend the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) for securing the debate and for his work as the Prime Minister’s special envoy. I am sorry that he had to resign.
I thank the Bishop of Truro for his work and all the organisations, many of which have been named, for the work they have done in bringing attention to many of these instances of persecution, particularly against Christians, around the world. I declare an interest as a Christian, and as someone who worked previously with Open Doors and a number of other organisations to highlight such cases, including working with Christians on the Left within my own party.
It is, of course, disappointing that it has been a month since the resignation of the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham and the Government are yet to appoint a special envoy. I hope that the Minister can give us some news on that, because it is crucial and relates to at least four of the recommendations in the report of the Bishop of Truro. It is vital that we get that work back up and going, but I know that the hon. Member will continue to be a strong voice on these issues.
The Bishop of Truro said very clearly at the start of the report:
“Across the globe…Christians are being bullied, arrested, jailed, expelled and executed. Christianity is by most calculations the most persecuted religion of modern times. Yet Western politicians until now have been reluctant to speak out in support of Christians in peril.”
We have seen the opposite today. Many of us are willing to speak out on these issues, and I know that many others across the House are not afraid to do so either and that they will also continue to speak up for those facing persecution.
Sadly, there are far too many circumstances to mention them all, but I will focus on a number. I will start by talking specifically about the situation for Christians in Nigeria, but given the events overnight, with your leave, Mr Hollobone, I will briefly mention the shocking scenes of brutality and violence at the Lekki toll plaza. I hope that the Minister can share the Government’s response to those shocking scenes, not least because of our strong relationship with Nigeria and its military and security forces. Amnesty has said that there is credible evidence of excessive use of force leading to the deaths of protesters. The action has been condemned by the former US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, so can the Minister tell us whether he and his colleagues will be urgently speaking with the Nigerian high commissioner and their counterparts in the Nigerian Foreign Ministry? It is crucial that they do so, given the horrific scenes overnight.
I want to draw attention particularly to the concerns in Nigeria for Christians. We have heard from Christian Solidarity Worldwide of 50,000 Christians in southern Kaduna state having to flee violence. We have heard from a number of Members, including through the work of the APPG and the report that was mentioned, of the violence between Fulani herders and settled farming communities. In 2019, 1,000 Christians were killed. The International Crisis Group has pointed to more than 300,000 people being displaced, and, of course, Nigerian human rights organisations have also been speaking out, saying that in 2015 up to 12,000 Christians were killed, with 350 deaths in just the first two months of 2020.
There is also alarming persecution of religious minorities by elements of the Nigerian state. There have been arbitrary arrests of both Christian and humanist figures. For example, Professor Solomon Musa Tarfa was detained in Kano state, as was Mubarak Bala from the Nigerian Humanist Association, whose case I have raised regularly with the Minister for Africa, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge).
There are many other worrying circumstances beyond those in Nigeria. We have heard about the circumstances of the Muslim Rohingya minority and the persecution they face at the hands of the Myanmar authorities, and about the situation for Rohingya Christians. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) talked about that. There are approximately 1,500 Rohingya Christians and they report that they have faced threats and violence in camps, including an attack in January this year when a group of men attacked 22 Christian families, vandalised homes, looted personal property and smashed up a makeshift church and school.
Of course, we have also seen attacks across the middle east. We have heard about the persecution of Coptic Christians and the destruction of churches in Egypt. In Algeria, there is an ongoing campaign of church closures against the Protestant Church of Algeria, which serves the Berber population—13 churches have been closed over the past three years. We have heard about the situation in Iran, where only Shi’a Muslims are allowed to hold key political positions and there are continued attacks on people who change or renounce their religious beliefs. Atheists, too, are affected. Many people whose religious beliefs differ from those of the extraordinarily repressive regime in Iran are at risk of arbitrary detention, torture and the death penalty.
We have also heard about the situation in Pakistan, where the blasphemy laws still carry the mandatory death penalty and violate fundamental rights to the freedom of expression, thought, conscience and religion. Rather than moving away from such violations, there has been an increase in attacks. Many individual cases are of deep concern to the organisations that have been speaking out so powerfully on behalf of individuals, individual churches and others who have been affected.
There is also the situation in Sri Lanka, with the horrific attacks that we have just been marking. Those scenes have utterly shocked the world. The situation has also worsened in places that have not been drawing attention, such as Mozambique. The situation in the north of that country is deeply worrying. Recently, monks in the north of the country have been forced to flee across the border to Tanzania after an attack on their monastery in the district of Cabo Delgado. The deeply worrying rise in extremism there is, I am afraid to say, little noticed by the outside world.
There are so many examples of religious persecution that it is difficult to do them justice. Organisations have been highlighting such atrocities. I mentioned the specific Christian organisations, but organisations such Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and many others have also been leading efforts to draw attention to the circumstances and to urge Governments around the world to act.
We heard about the situation with the Chinese Communist party, including from the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), who is no longer in his place. The so-called sanitisation of religion, which was pushed by Premier Li at the National People’s Congress in March 2018, has been on show and affects not only Christians but other religious minorities, including Muslims, Buddhists and Taoists, and other non-religious groups. The week-long disappearance of Catholic Bishop Shao Zhumin from Guangzhou diocese in Zhejiang was also very worrying. There is also the case of Guo Xijin in Fujian province. When he fled state custody and went into hiding, having refused to bring his church under the Government-run Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, the authorities in the diocese of Mindong began closing churches, installing surveillance cameras and evicting priests who refused to be brought under official control.
Of course, we cannot have this debate without mentioning the absolutely shameful and disturbing atrocities that are being perpetrated against the Uyghur population in Xinjiang, who are facing a monstrous Government-co-ordinated programme of police surveillance, enforced re-education, disappearances, internment and mass detention. There are even shocking reports of forced sterilisation.
Having heard the powerful contributions made today, I want to put a few questions to the Minister. Obviously, the Government have enacted a number of the Bishop of Truro’s recommendations, including the launching of the John Bunyan fund, but there have been cuts to official development assistance budgets as a result of the decline in gross national income, and we believe there are cuts that go beyond that. Can the Minister confirm what cuts will be happening and to what extent there will be ongoing funding for the John Bunyan fund and work will continue to focus on tackling persecution of religious minorities? Will specific country programmes in some of the contexts that we have mentioned today face the chop? I certainly hope not, because that work is absolutely vital.
Recommendation 18 in the Bishop of Truro’s report talks about a standard FORB scale of persecution. It would be incredibly beneficial to have a clear scale of escalation, so that the Government and others could formulate common approaches in advocating for persecuted Christians, especially in the very worst cases and situations.
The freedom and right to believe and worship as one chooses, without threat of attack or sanction, whether legal, financial, social or physical, is one of the most fundamental rights that we hold, but too often and in too many places, we see both governmental and non-governmental actors using division, hatred, sectarianism and persecution to advance their agendas, bolster support and eradicate dissent and freedom of thought. The UK must stand boldly against such egregious abuse of human rights. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government will be expanding their work to uphold freedom of religion and belief for all.
These freedoms are guaranteed by some of our most fundamental human rights global commitments: article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, article 18 of the international covenant on civil and political rights, and the declaration on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief. There is of course a crucial UN special rapporteur on these issues. There is the UN Human Rights Council. Perhaps the Minister can say how we will be using our seat on the UN Human Rights Council to push these agendas forward.
Of course, all of this is underpinned by the UK remaining committed to the very highest standards of human rights, to the rule of law and to a proactive role in global human rights bodies. I am sorry to say that we have seen some drawing back from that in recent years. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that that will not be the case, that these programmes will continue to be funded and that he and his colleagues will continue to use their full diplomatic muscle for global Britain to advance the case of persecuted Christians worldwide.
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I not only congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) on securing this debate, but commend him for his long-standing commitment to freedom of religion or belief. I also thank him for his incredibly hard work over the last year as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. He gave us a fantastic run-through of his work over the last year—an exhausting year, by the sounds of it—and it was well worth the over-run on his time, Mr Hollobone, to be able to hear about all the work that he has done. There sure are big boots to fill in that regard. My hon. Friend’s commitment to this agenda has contributed hugely to the Government’s work in this area. It has been instrumental in the implementation of more than half the Bishop of Truro’s recommendations.
I also extend my gratitude to colleagues for their impassioned speeches today. I will try to respond to all the points raised, although I suspect, given the time, that that is wishful thinking. But I do have, to coin a phrase, an open-door policy at the FCDO and I will be more than happy to meet individual colleagues to go through some of the issues that I am not able to respond on today. We have a great team there, working on this agenda, and we will be more than happy to work with everyone collaboratively where we are all on the same page.
I can start by reaffirming the Government’s unwavering commitment to freedom of religion or belief. The commitment was further underlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s appointment last year of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham, who succeeded my ministerial colleague Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who continues to champion this cause in his capacity as FCDO Minister responsible for human rights, in the House of Lords.
The Prime Minister is resolute in his commitment to freedom of religion or belief, and I can confirm that a new special envoy will be appointed in due course. I thought that the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) was making a fantastic pitch for the job until he pivoted and gave a great reference for the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I ask colleagues to “bear with”, as my kids say. An appointment will be made by the Prime Minister shortly; he is absolutely committed to there being that role. Diplomacy and development go hand in hand. Religious intolerance and persecution are often at the heart of foreign and development policy challenges. Where freedom of religion or belief is under attack, other human rights are often threatened too. The newly merged FCDO is using all its diplomatic tools to ensure that no one suffers because of their conscience.
As the House is aware, the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), commissioned an independent review into the scale of Christian persecution globally. It produced a set of challenging recommendations on what more the Government could do to support people of all faiths and none everywhere around the world. So far, as we have heard, we have implemented, or are in the process of implementing, 17 of the recommendations. I will run through just some of them.
Recommendation 11 focuses on the religious literacy of our officials. I am pleased that work is under way to ensure that British diplomats and officials have access to enhanced religious literacy training to help them understand the role that religion plays in many people’s lives and in the decisions that they make. That training will help us to develop more religiously literate policies and to engage more effectively.
Recommendation 9 is about the establishment of a John Bunyan fund. In August last year, we launched the fund successfully. In the first year alone, we funded 15 research projects looking at the challenges faced by different communities, including Christians, Yazidis and humanists, as well as at cross-cutting issues such as migration and the double vulnerability experienced by women from minority faith backgrounds.
Recommendation 20 encourages us to use our position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to seek a resolution calling on Governments in the middle east and north Africa to ensure protection of Christians and other faith minorities. The Foreign Secretary remains absolutely committed to delivering that recommendation, recognising freedom of religion or belief as a force for good. Lord Ahmad has been working tirelessly on this and met our mission in New York a fortnight ago to review the opportunities presented by our presidency of the Security Council in 2021. We are working harder than ever to support those who are persecuted on account of their religion or belief and to implement the recommendations of the Bishop of Truro.
Today’s debate highlights why our efforts are so urgently needed. We have stepped up our work internationally as one of the founding members of the new international religious freedom or belief alliance—we have stood together alongside 31 other states to protect freedom of religion or belief. Again, I have to extend my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham for his leadership on that. We have heard about some of the excellent work that the alliance has delivered.
We will continue to use our influential voice to raise FORB at the United Nations, including urging the international community to work together—we have heard today how important that is—to face the challenges presented by covid-19. It is particularly important at this time to ensure that the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of society are actively included in response and recovery efforts.
Turing to some of the references made by right hon. and hon. Members, we heard an excellent opening speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham, as I said. He asked whether we would host the inter-ministerial global conference on FORB in 2022. We will announce a date for that conference in the coming months.
My hon. Friend also talked about sanctions. One or two other Members mentioned our sanctions regime and asked why we are not already implementing it against certain individuals who are oppressing the Uyghur population. We introduced the sanctions regime in July. It gives us a powerful tool to hold to account those involved in serious human rights violations. We are constantly considering further designations under the regime but, as hon. Members will appreciate, it would be wrong to speculate exactly who may be designated, because to do so at this stage reduces the impact of any sanctions.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) referred to the excellent work of Open Doors, as did the spokesperson for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who has worked with that organisation himself. He and other hon. Members also referred to what is going on in Nigeria. We are aware of the reports of recent human rights violations involving the Special Anti-Robbery Squad, and recent incidents have prompted serious and widespread protests. Our high commissioner in Abuja has raised that with the Nigerian Government. We condemn all incidents of inter-communal violence in Nigeria, which continue to have a devastating effect on communities of all faiths.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow also referred to Pakistan, and I very much look forward to receiving her letter. As I said earlier, I am happy to meet her with my team to go through that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) is a constant champion on this issue, and we thank her for all her work on it. She rightly mentioned the genocide definition. Genocide has a specific definition in international law, and any judgment about whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a judicial decision, but I thank her for rightly referring to it again.
Nigel Adams
I will, but I will probably end up not covering everybody’s points.
Fiona Bruce
Will the Minister reassure us that he will consider the amendment to the Trade Bill, to which more than one Member referred?
Nigel Adams
Yes. With regard to the Trade Bill, we have a strong history of safeguarding human rights and promoting our values globally. Strong economic relationships with our partners allow us to have open discussions on a range of important issues, including human rights. We continue to encourage all states to uphold their international human rights obligations.
The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) spoke passionately about her personal experiences of meeting constituents who have been discriminated against. I thank her for welcoming the pace at which the recommendations are being implemented. I can assure her that the full set of recommendations will be implemented by July 2022. We are very concerned about reports that some communities are being denied access to aid. My colleague the Minister for human rights raised that issue during the UK’s closing statement at the 44th session of the UN Human Rights Council.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford and my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) for their passionate contributions. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford on the birth of his grandson. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), who is no longer in his place, rightly raised the issue of Pakistan and China. The hon. Member for Glasgow East made a well-thought-out and passionate speech, which was almost a great pitch for the special envoy’s role.
Before handing back to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham, I want to assure the House that the Government will continue to be a long-standing champion of human rights and freedoms. We have a duty to promote and defend our values of equality, inclusion and respect at home and abroad. We will continue to stand up for the rights of minority communities around the world and defend the right to freedom of religion or belief for everyone everywhere.
Rehman Chishti
I thank the Minister for that response, and I also thank colleagues. People of all faiths or beliefs and none have the concept of forgiveness, and I ask for forgiveness for going on for longer than I should have at the outset.
I can only do my job as envoy because of the fantastic work of parliamentarians pushing it at every level, and constituents. The first question I asked at the Foreign Office was where FORB is on the scale of correspondence. I was told that it was the second-highest issue that people write to the Foreign Office about after the middle east peace process. It is fantastic that, when we speak to officials, we can say, “This is what Parliament says, and this is what constituents say.” We have a duty to deliver and do everything we can on FORB.
From our days of playing cricket for the House of Commons cricket team, I know about the Minister’s captaining—his brilliant strategy, frankness, openness and listening—and I thank him for all he does. I just want to ask a couple of things. The FORB forum, led by Bishop Philip, is brilliant at getting NGOs together. In addition to writing the letter for the new special envoy, the work it has done on China, Nigeria and Iraq recently is absolutely crucial. It would be great if the Minister was able to meet with it and discuss that at its monthly meetings.
I should mention recommendation 12:
“Establish a clear framework for reporting”
at post. That was more or less signed off in my time. I ask the Minister for the FORB toolkit to be shared around the world.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No.10(6)).
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the sitting for two minutes.
Right to Food in Legislation
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the right to food in legislation.
I called this debate because of the humanitarian crisis we are seeing in every community and in every part of this nation. The crisis of food insecurity, which is leaving no MP’s constituency untouched, affects the basic human rights of millions of our citizens every day. We are seeing a crisis of food poverty born out of the political choices and systemic failings created over the past four decades, which have now reached a tipping point for so many in our communities. The figures are devastating for one of the richest nations in the world and highlight the inequality of the UK in 2020.
The Trussell Trust reports a soaring 81% increase in emergency food parcels from food banks in its network during the last two weeks of March 2020 compared with the same period in 2019, including a 122% rise in parcels given to children as the coronavirus pandemic continued to unfold. As long as I live, I will not forget meeting a community leader in Liverpool five minutes from my home and seeing what I thought was a queue for the bingo in my local community centre. There were people, young and old, drawn from across my community. I was corrected by the community leader, and told that, in fact, it was a queue for the food bank. It haunted me then, and it haunts me now, because it was so unfair and so wrong.
The problem of escalating food poverty in the UK can be fixed. We can see in the evidence available the direct correlation between the cuts in Government welfare spending and the numbers of families with children, pensioners, the working poor and homeless people queueing up for food parcels because of those cuts. Like austerity, this is a political choice, not a pre-determined occurrence. Therefore, it cannot be fixed without a concerted effort by the Government of the day to take clear responsibility in developing solutions and policy to eradicate the problem’s root cause. We need more voices like the inspirational Marcus Rashford, bringing the plight of hungry children to the attention of the public and the political classes.
One key recommendation made by civil society organisations and various independent experts, such as United Nations committees, is to introduce a right to food into domestic law. That approach recognises that the UK has ratified international treaties such as the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights and three separate international conventions, protecting children, women and people with disabilities, but has never incorporated them into domestic law. Each of those treaties contains a specific mention of the right to food, yet those legally binding international treaties have limited influence and bearing in domestic courts. The right to food would need to be strengthened by the establishment of a strong system of domestic legal entitlements and the provision of easily accessible accountability mechanisms that redress violations and contribute to the improvement of citizens’ wellbeing.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward today’s debate. Since the start of the lockdown, the use of food banks in York has increased by 300%. I agree with and support his call for a statutory right to food. Does he agree that, within that, everybody should be able to access a hot free meal every day?
Ian Byrne
Absolutely. I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague. That is a hugely important principle, which we should adhere to as a civilised society, and we may discuss Marcus Rashford’s petition later. Having the right to food in law would hopefully result in people having the ability to have a hot meal a day. That is why I am here today to discuss this topic.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recommended that the Government consult on whether a right to food should be given a legislative footing to ensure that the Government have a reference point for action to tackle and measure food insecurity, with the flexibility to meet that commitment using different measures. Some of the evidence from the Committee’s session was compelling. Professor Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City, University of London, told the Select Committee:
“If you do not have it in legislation, you do not have indicators and it does not happen.”
Anna Taylor, who is working with Henry Dimbleby on the national food strategy, represented the Food Foundation at the evidence session. She added:
“If we get the legal structures right, the governance arrangements are right and Parliament is involved in scrutinising those, we will not be in the situation we have now with such high levels of unmet need.”
The second part of the national food strategy being drawn up by Henry Dimbleby gives us a real opportunity to recommend the right to food, and I really hope he can be persuaded that it must be a key recommendation.
The right to food should not be seen in isolation. Having enough food for your family is part of a decent standard of living. Hunger is a symptom of broader social inequalities and rights violations, not least low-paid, insecure jobs and a broken social security system—all of which have been exposed even further by the current economic crisis under the pandemic.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
In Wales, we are hoping to pilot the universal basic income initiative, because, as my hon. Friend has just alluded to, prevention is much better than cure in terms of food poverty. Does he endorse the recommendation of the Welsh Senedd that it is now time to introduce universal basic income so that nobody has to go without food?
Ian Byrne
I do endorse that call. I am a huge supporter of universal basic income. It should be looked at as one of the possible strands of the solution to what we are facing as a society. I hope the Government listen to some of the calls for universal basic income and look at different solutions. We are in extraordinary times at the moment. Universal basic income could be one of the strands of the solution, so that we do not have 9 million people who are struggling to put a meal on the table. That is hugely important.
As I said, the right to food should not be seen in isolation. We are living through extraordinary times and seeing a spotlight shone on the inequalities in society. According to the Independent Food Aid Network report, 82.7% of food banks in its sample that collected relevant data
“indicated waiting on a benefit payment or decision as one of the three most common reasons for food bank use, and 73.8% of food banks indicated interruption or reduction in benefit payments as one of the three most common reasons for food bank use.”
The solidarity shown during the covid-19 pandemic has been heartwarming, and it is one of the positives that we can draw from the period, completely at odds with the ideology of Thatcher and the infamous quote about there being “no such thing as society”. That has been exemplified in grassroots mutual aid efforts across the country, in all our communities, and we can all be proud of that. I speak with personal knowledge from Fans Supporting Food Banks, an organisation started in Liverpool five years ago and built with the magnificent efforts of football supporters from across our nation, particularly Newcastle, Leeds, Burnley, Aston Villa, Manchester United, Manchester City and West Ham. That sort of collaboration has been absolutely magnificent and has been welcome in our communities.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for all that he has done in working with the football community and the broader community, and even Man United fans—I declare an interest. He walks the walk and is passionate about the issue, but there are things we can all do together, collectively. We come here to make a difference. We should not even be talking about the right to food. Let us all come together and make a difference. I pay homage to my hon. Friend and thank him.
Ian Byrne
Many thanks. Fans Supporting Food Banks says, “Hunger doesn’t wear club colours”. It certainly does not, and we have fantastic friends in Manchester and across the board, and solidarity with Manchester in these troubling times.
I also pay tribute to the trade unions that have been involved locally, such as the GMB north-west and Irish region, which has been magnificent in supplying help, aid and support. That is acting collectively, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) said, to tackle food poverty in the communities they serve. It has been a joy to behold, but we cannot forget that it is just a sticking plaster on a broken leg.
Sabine Goodwin of the Independent Food Aid Network has said:
“The amount of people needing to go to food banks is not remedied by food banks… The problem is a lack of income and a lack of food. It stems from the fact that there is a level of poverty that is being ignored.”
We cannot tinker around the edges of food insecurity. It must be addressed head on with political courage and a morality that has been lacking in the past decade. Ensuring that millions of our fellow citizens do not go hungry and that their basic rights, including the right to food, are protected is a moral duty. Those things should be a legal right.
I thank the Minister. I enjoyed the chat we had, which was informative. I look forward to working with her. I also thank hon. Members who have attended the debate. I note with interest that the Leader of the House wrote to his Cabinet colleagues calling for bold and ambitious Bills for the upcoming Queen’s Speech.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
I know that my hon. Friend is about to conclude, but is he aware of a charity called Foodshare? It goes around the country looking at food wastage, and deals with companies that might, for example, have quite a bit of food wastage in their production, and puts money into them. It also goes to farmers who may have over-produced a crop. Instead of those farmers putting the crop back into the ground, Foodshare gives them the extra money they need to produce the crop so that they can give it to food banks. It has been doing that work with food banks across the country. Does he agree that there is enough food in this country to feed everyone, given all the waste we have, and that the Government should put money into organisations such as Foodshare to help alleviate food insecurity?
Ian Byrne
Absolutely. I am fully in agreement. I would be interested to find out more about that organisation, because that is exactly what we need to be doing. We need to ensure that the food being produced is used and targeted. There are some fine organisations that do that, alongside organisations such as FareShare, which we have talked about. There are plenty of organisations out there, but we need more of them and we need a more targeted approach. The waste in this country is unforgivable when we have 9 million people struggling with food insecurity. That is something we need to rectify.
We have heard about the Leader of the House’s call for bold and ambitions Bills. I can think of nothing more bold than legislation that recognises the simple, basic human right to food, which would help lift 9 million people out of food insecurity. Many more people will be following them over the next six months. I look forward to working with colleagues to achieve that aim, because regardless of political party, we surely all support that. It is the decent and right thing to do, and it is where we should be as a country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) on securing such an important debate. I, too, enjoyed our chat about food charities before the debate, and our previous conversations in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I look forward to working with him over the coming winter, which we all know will be a challenging time.
The last few months have highlighted to everybody the importance of access to food. I put on record my thanks to all those who have kept the nation fed at this difficult time, including the people who work for Fans Supporting Foodbanks, such as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, who was too modest about the work that he has done for that charity. I would like to thank the community fridges in my area, particularly the one run from Banbury mosque, which has done sterling work to feed Banbury during the pandemic. Later I will touch on FareShare, which has a depot in my constituency, and with which I have been pleased to work closely in my ministerial role.
I was privileged to chair a cross-Whitehall ministerial taskforce—I wish it had not been necessary, but I was pleased to be involved—that was set up to ensure that food and essential supplies reached the vulnerable during the pandemic. We worked with industry to smooth the way wherever we could, including relaxing competition laws and drivers’ hours. We worked on access issues. At the beginning, that was very much physical access issues for people who were stuck at home, but we then moved to focus more on economic access to food.
The continuation of the taskforce is one of the recommendations listed in Henry Dimbleby’s interim report, published in July this year. We are taking his recommendations very seriously. We have made a firm commitment to publish a food White Paper within six months of his final report, which is due next spring.
As part of our wider commitment to regular reporting on food, we have a duty under clause 19 of the Agriculture Bill—if and when it receives Royal Assent, which I hope will be soon—that commits the Government to lay before Parliament a regular report containing an analysis of statistical data relating to food security, in the widest sense, in the UK.
We listened to concerns raised, particularly from the House of Lords, regarding the frequency of the food security report, so we have reduced the minimum frequency of reporting from five to three years, but I stress that is a minimum. In times of real pressure on the national food supply, it may well be appropriate to report much more often. That is why I was so glad to have Henry Dimbleby’s interim report in July, which touched on the beginning of the pandemic. The food security report is different and extra to Henry Dimbleby’s work on the national food strategy, but both are useful to all of us who are interested in this sphere, as we take this work forward.
We all know that this is a very difficult time for people across the country. Many households have felt a real financial impact from coronavirus. That is why we, as a Government, have taken steps to ease the burden where we can through targeted support, which includes income protection schemes, mortgage holidays and additional support for renters. We have also injected further spending into the welfare system, and approximately £9 billion of extra support has gone to people’s incomes throughout the pandemic where possible.
During the pandemic we have worked across Government to try to concentrate our effort, as the hon. Gentleman asked, on people struggling to access and afford food. In March we started the shielding scheme and supported the 2.2 million people in England identified by the NHS as particularly vulnerable. Through our wholesaler partners, Brakes and Bidfood, 4.5 million boxes of essential food were delivered to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has always worked closely with the third sector to identify individuals who might need support to get essential food supplies. We talk regularly to volunteer groups, food bank organisations and other redistribution charities, including FareShare, with which we have worked particularly closely this year. In May it was an early recipient of a large sum of Government money to help it to help the people it provides food to. We remain in regular contact with FareShare and others across civil society to ensure that there is sufficient support for those who need it.
We know the difficulties that some families currently face in accessing food and we continue to take steps to support them. We know that a large number of vulnerable people rely on their friends, family and other community organisations. Where that is not possible, we continue to work with major third sector organisations to refer vulnerable people to a variety of tailored services, including facilitating access to priority supermarket delivery slots. I was pleased that in June we could announce an additional £63 million-worth of food for local authorities in England that could be targeted at the vulnerable—at a local level, local authorities know who is struggling—so that they could access food and other essentials. I had a very useful meeting less than two weeks ago with the Trussell Trust and with the Children’s Society, and they felt that that targeted fund was particularly useful and was reaching those who needed it most. There is still money available in the fund—possibly not in all areas, but in many of the areas where that money has gone. I understand that money is still going out from that fund and that it can continue to do so until the end of this month.
Rachael Maskell
I really appreciate what the Minister is saying. We are on the cusp of seeing mass job losses, which is terrifying. The demand for food security will escalate sharply, so what additional support will be put in place for local authorities? I agree that they know best where the need is. Where will the additional support come from?
Victoria Prentis
I thank the hon. Lady, who I am proud to call a friend, for that intervention. I would very much like to continue to work with her to identify particular areas of need. Work is going on across Government at the moment. The Secretary of State took part in a cross-Government roundtable on food yesterday. Many of us will be in the Chamber later to hear what Members from across the House have to say about access to food. I think we all recognise the scale of the problem. We need to continue to check that our figures are right and that we know what is happening on the ground. It is important that we continue the work that we started this year.
I want to turn to the work being done by Marcus Rashford, who was referenced by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby. I welcome the establishment of the new child food poverty taskforce. The Government will carefully consider its recommendations as we approach the next spending review. I will not talk further about free school meals now because I know that debate will take place in the Chamber this afternoon.
Beth Winter
The Welsh Government have announced that they will extend free school meals during school holidays until spring 2021, which will cost £11 million. We do not have the resources, but we are finding them because there is a desperate need for this. Surely it is now time for the UK Government to follow the Welsh Government’s lead and do the same.
Victoria Prentis
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I enjoy working with Lesley Griffiths, the Welsh Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, on food security issues—she was a valued member of my taskforce. I am sure that we will discuss that specific issue in the main Chamber this afternoon, but I look forward to having further conversations with Lesley Griffiths and others about what we do as four nations moving forward in this area.
The work that Marcus Rashford is doing to look into the current UK food system links in with the Government’s commitment to develop a food strategy that will support the development of a food system that is sustainable, resilient and affordable, and that we hope in time will support people to live healthy lives, and protect animal health and welfare as well.
In closing, I will further emphasise that the Government are committed to doing everything we can to support the most vulnerable to gain access to food, by having a robust welfare system that provides a safety net where needed, and by having policy interventions in place that can be implemented where needed.
Question put and agreed to.
Support for People and Businesses in Wales: Covid-19
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for people and businesses in Wales affected by the covid-19 outbreak.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh. I am pleased to have secured this debate and glad to see so many hon. Members from across the House who hope to contribute. I do not need to tell anyone that we are living in extraordinary times. No one foresaw the pandemic, and the virus, by its very nature, has been difficult to predict. In the absence of a vaccine, it seems as though the virus will be with us for a long time and that we will have to learn to live with it. That means trusting science. As always, we have those commentators who are suddenly experts in microbiology and seem to know better than the scientists. However, the debate must focus on how the Welsh economy will adapt to the new world in which we live.
Ever since a national lockdown was announced in March, nearly every sector in my constituency—from the hairdresser, to the driving instructor and the estate agent—has written to me because they are worried about their future survival. Just last month, the Caerphilly county borough area, which includes Islwyn, was put into a further lockdown, which has only increased the financial pressure on businesses struggling to recover from the March lockdown. With the announcement of a firebreak—a two-week lockdown commencing at 6 pm on Friday—those fears have massively escalated.
The firebreak lockdown proposed by the Welsh Labour Government is necessary in order to regain control of the virus, save lives and alleviate the pressure on the national health service, but the news of a lockdown has been a hammer blow for so many businesses already struggling to stay afloat. During my time as a Member of Parliament, I have worked with and come to know one of the Islwyn businesses under threat. Halletts Cider got in touch in March to ask for assistance in finding financial support. Since that time, it has been able to access a bounce back loan, but it now faces the worry of how to pay that back. As this crisis goes on, I fear that many people will be in a similar situation to Hallets, a company that many hon. Members will know well, as it has taken part in past events arranged by the all-party parliamentary group on cider, and it can be seen at many festivals around Wales and other parts of the country. It is a very good business, and I ask that the Treasury makes plans to address its concerns.
I am concerned for businesses across the UK. It is vital that we do all we can to support them. As I said about Halletts, these businesses are completely viable in normal times—they are flourishing and thriving—but through no fault of their own they face huge financial uncertainty. The Welsh Government have worked hard to curtail this uncertainty, going above and beyond the work of the UK Government to offer the support that Welsh businesses needed. However, areas such as mine have not been able to function properly for a long time now, and this looks likely to continue, given the recent announcement of the two-week full lockdown.
The Welsh Government have done all they can to support businesses, but at the end of the day it comes down to one thing: finance. The Welsh Government can offer support only within the confines of Barnett consequentials. However, that will only become more difficult given the need for a firebreak lockdown. Since the lockdown was announced, I have heard from more businesses concerned about being unable to operate once again. I know that the Welsh Government will do all they can to support those businesses, as they have throughout the pandemic. However, I feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can and should do more.
I place on the record my thanks to the Welsh Economy Minister, Ken Skates, and I am sure that many Members will agree. Whenever I have written to his office about a business in my constituency asking for support, he has often arranged for members of his office to give the business a ring and talk through the options. I know those businesses have found that help invaluable— and I include Halletts in that, after his office rang Halletts within a couple of days of my asking them to give the business a call. The Welsh Government have provided the most comprehensive and generous package of financial support for businesses of all the UK’s nations. To date, the Welsh Government’s economic resilience fund has given almost £300 million of support to more than 13,000 businesses in Wales. That has helped to protect more than 100,000 jobs that were at risk of being lost. Welsh Government Ministers have made available a £300 million support package for businesses affected by the firebreak, including additional discretionary grants and support for smaller businesses that are struggling.
I believe that the Welsh Government are doing everything they can, but I am deeply concerned about the level of communication with the devolved Governments. It has been nothing short of disappointing. Sometimes I think that the Prime Minister needs to realise that we live in a new world. Perhaps it is beyond his ideas of the 1940s and ’50s, when the Prime Minister was all-powerful. The fact is that there are three nations with their own Governments and leaders, and he has to talk to them. The UK Government should commit to more regular and reliable engagement with those devolved Governments. Simply put, the matter is too important for us not to be singing from the same hymn sheet.
Among new measures that the Welsh Government have introduced is an increase in the flexibility of terms for firms borrowing from the flexible investment fund of the Development Bank of Wales. The limit for that fund will be doubled from £5 million to £10 million. The development bank will also have the discretion to extend loan periods up to 15 years, which will help to spread the cost of borrowing. Those are all helpful steps, but the measures that are coming in on Friday will strain them to the absolute limit.
At the end of last month the Welsh Government announced that £140 million would be spend in grants to Welsh businesses. Of that, £20 million has been earmarked for tourism and hospitality businesses, while businesses with a rateable value under £50,000 are able to apply for grants as well. Those are incredibly helpful measures for a huge number of businesses, but the next two weeks will mean that more help is needed.
In the phase of local lockdowns, the Welsh Government introduced a new local lockdown business fund. That support is invaluable for areas such as mine that have now been in local lockdown for over a month. The purpose of the fund is to support businesses with cashflow support, to help them to survive the economic consequences of the local restrictions that have been put in place in their area. Businesses can apply for the fund when their local area has been in lockdown for a minimum of 21 days. It is administered by local authorities, which are best placed to serve the needs of the community. I want to thank the chief executive and leader of Caerphilly County Borough Council for their handling and management of the lockdown, as well as the vast number of staff who have been so helpful during the pandemic.
The Welsh Government have also implemented targeted support for childcare providers. At the beginning of the pandemic I was contacted by several nurseries and childcare providers in my area, who were understandably concerned that if everyone worked from home their services would no longer be required. Thanks to the Welsh Government, they can now apply for a grant of £5,000 to cover any losses from April to June, when the strictest measures were in place.
Wales is a nation with many great assets that we can be hugely proud of. One area that I am passionate about is the promotion of tourism in Wales, and I am glad to see that it is the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) who will respond to this debate, as we spoke extensively in February about the development of a Henry VII trail, to encourage American tourists with an interest in British history to come to Wales and see where Henry VII landed before eventually becoming King. I pay tribute to the Minister for the encouragement that he and officials and other Members have given to trying to bring that to fruition. Unfortunately the pandemic brought the talks to a crashing halt, but we were making progress.
Tourism has been one of the industries hardest hit by the pandemic. Gareth Bates, who owns the Cardiff-based tourism company Tours of Wales, has said that usually about 50% of his customers are Americans, and so, as he has not seen any of them, he has lost a portion of his revenue. Some tourism companies have been able to recoup part of that loss through an increase in the number of tourists from other parts of the UK. As families could not holiday abroad, more of them turned to Wales for a summer holiday. However, this increase has not been enough to meet the shortfall, with many hotel and bed-and-breakfast owners wondering where their next booking is actually going to come from.
Local lockdowns and full lockdowns, such as the upcoming two-week lockdown in Wales, and the guidance not to travel unless absolutely necessary have made fewer and farther between the number of UK travellers hoping to holiday in Wales. This means that many business owners now face the prospect of losing not only international customers but customers from elsewhere in the UK, too. I am pleased to say that the Welsh Government have once again stepped in to help secure these businesses by ring-fencing £20 million of support specifically for the tourism hospitality sector.
Some 34% of businesses in Wales have benefited from Welsh or UK Government coronavirus support, compared with only 14% in England. I believe that is a good thing. The Welsh Government are also taking additional steps to ensure that covid support reaches those who need it most. They have announced that coronavirus support will not be available to companies based in tax havens, thereby ensuring that coronavirus aid reaches the companies that need it most and that contribute to our economy fairly. That is why support needs to be provided in an ethical way, ensuring that we reward companies that do the right thing and contribute.
An example of the extra support offered by the Welsh Government is the aid given to start-up firms, which are currently left out of the UK provisions for financial aid relating to covid. The Welsh Government have not left these businesses out in the cold. This is such an important point, Mr Leigh, as the vast majority of our businesses in Wales are microbusinesses of one or two people. The fund for this aid is worth £5 million, with flexibility to increase this amount in the future, if needed. It will support start-up firms that fall outside of the UK Government’s self-employment income support scheme. Under the UK scheme, businesses that were started within the last year do not qualify for the SEISS, and it is unclear whether that will be remedied or if other provisions will be made for those affected. The Welsh Government are stepping in and providing crucial funding to recently established businesses so that they can continue to trade through the pandemic. This will aid at least 2,000 businesses that fall outside the UK Government’s help schemes.
Although every sector across the country has felt the economic hardship that covid has brought with it, I will highlight only some sectors today. There are recurring themes in the correspondence I receive from the people of Islwyn about certain areas that need help, or else face closure. They are all related to gaps in the UK Government’s schemes.
As we are well aware, pubs and restaurants have been operating under varying levels of restriction since March. Restrictions on their opening times and capacity, guidance to limit contact with others, and public anxiousness all drastically cut footfall. Footfall is significantly lower even for those businesses that are capable of being opened. As we know, all these businesses will be closed completely during the coming weeks while the firebreak is in effect.
In my own constituency of Islwyn, I have heard of many local pubs and restaurants that have struggled in the past few months. One pub was excluded from furloughing staff because of the date that the landlady took over, meaning that she had to choose between staff not being paid or paying them and going into debt herself. The cut-off date for support seems completely arbitrary to me, and it puts new business owners, such as my constituent, in a difficult position.
I take issue with the lack of clarity in the Chancellor’s statements. Many people in Wales do not follow the intricate details of what is and what is not devolved, or they are simply too busy to keep up with such matters. We do not all live in a bubble within which politics is the be-all and end-all of our lives. At the start of the crisis, Welsh Labour MPs were forced to write to the Treasury to seek clarity on what support applied to businesses in Wales, as the guidance simply was not clear enough. Businesspeople were often left confused as to whether or not the Chancellor’s announcements applied to the whole of the UK or just England. The message was not clear and it was also difficult to access, leaving may businesspeople confused as to what financial aid they qualified for.
Only the UK Government have the financial firepower to guarantee the levels of support that workers need, despite the continual work of Welsh Ministers. Welsh businesses need more generous payments to help their workers through this crisis. The Welsh Government are clearly taking proactive steps and doing all they can to support businesses, plugging gaps where UK support is not sufficient. However, through no fault of its own, Wales is struggling, despite the best efforts of the Welsh Government and of the residents to keep their businesses alive.
It is time that proper consideration is taken in Westminster as to the level of flexibility of aid that should be offered, to ensure that businesses can continue to function and jobs can be retained over the coming winter. As Wales faces a two-week lockdown, this has become even more urgent. Aid needs to be more targeted and more flexible, to take into account the complexities of British businesses. Above all, that must happen right now.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing this important debate. The last time he and I were in Westminster Hall, he reminded me of a day we spent in Blackwood, walking to raise funds for Velindre Cancer Care, which at that time was treating the late Steffan Lewis, a great man and a Plaid Cymru Member of the Senedd. We have sadly lost Steffan now, but every time I see the hon. Gentleman, I am reminded of that uplifting day and the collegiate, cross-party support that came with it, which I hope will seep into this debate.
Coronavirus has devastated businesses across Wales. I am incredibly proud and thankful for the level of support that both Governments have made available. Schemes such as the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme and the bounce back loan have directly supported businesses of all sizes right across Wales. Some 11,000 jobs in Brecon and Radnorshire have been protected through the UK Government’s furlough scheme. These schemes have been a lifeline to businesses that have lost the ability to trade for the better half of a year, with no clear end in sight.
Every sector in Brecon and Radnorshire has lost out, but I want to speak in particular for the tourism and hospitality sector. Many of the most beautiful parts of Wales can be found in my constituency. In a normal year, they would draw hundreds of thousands of tourists from all corners of the United Kingdom and, indeed, from around the world. For example, the small, independent book shops in Hay-on-Wye attract thousands of visitors each year, with the Hay festival being one of the world’s foremost literary events—yet another example of a loss to our community during this pandemic.
Following the easing of restrictions in Powys, pubs, restaurants and hotels were slowly coming back to life. Supported by the unique eat out to help out scheme, demand picked up in August. Many restaurant and café owners have told me how much they valued this scheme, which resulted in more than 77,000 meals being enjoyed in the constituency. The argument that it contributed to increasing rates of the virus in September is simply not borne out in Brecon and Radnorshire, where coronavirus rates have stayed mercifully low.
The First Minister’s decision on Monday to put the entire country into lockdown once again is, to use the words of the hon. Member for Islwyn, a hammer blow for those businesses that were just starting to recover. The decision penalises everyone across Wales, irrespective of the number of virus cases in a certain area. To make the problem worse, businesses have no foresight as to what comes next. The businesses in my constituency, which have relied on customers being able to travel up from the south Wales valleys, have no idea whether those people might be allowed back after the lockdown is lifted.
Like the hon. Gentleman, since Monday I have been flooded with emails from businesses and workers who are now deeply uncertain about their future. I was saddened to read on Facebook this morning that Aroma, a café in Llandrindod Wells, has announced that it cannot survive lockdown 2 and will be closing its doors permanently.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Is there not more certainty around the idea of a firebreak, or a circuit breaker, because it is time-limited, with a specific deadline of 9 November, whereas a very open-ended tier-based system leaves people in a vacuum for an indefinite period of time? Surely the Welsh approach provides far more certainty than the UK Government’s approach.
Fay Jones
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but we do not know what will happen after 9 November, as I will address in my speech.
It is clear to me that businesses do not want to be kept on life support through Government grants and loans. They want to be open and busy, serving customers and playing an important role in our communities. Throughout coronavirus, the tourism and hospitality sectors in Brecon and Radnorshire have reacted admirably and have done everything they can to stay open, while ensuring that their customers are safe.
I was pleased to visit Cantref activity centre in Brecon in the summer, which has worked incredibly hard to implement social-distancing measures and limit capacity, as have Dan yr Ogof caves, a 60-year-old underground caving attraction in Abercrave. They have all now been told by the Welsh Government that that work was for nothing and that they are to lose their half-term revenue—the only glimmer of hope in an otherwise dreadful year.
The lockdown is being imposed, and we will all have to comply, businesses included. I welcome that the Welsh Government have made £300 million available, but I hope that that can be targeted at businesses in the tourism and hospitality sectors, which are now facing their third winter of 2020. I will play my part by urging the Chancellor and the Treasury to maintain the 5% VAT rate, but I urge the Welsh Government to commit to scrapping business rates for tourism and hospitality businesses for another year. Above all, in answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), the Welsh Government need to explain what happens next. It is vital that we avoid an endless cycle of rolling lockdowns, as trailed by the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) on Sunday morning.
Before I conclude, I want to highlight the plight of the events sector, which is another important employer in my constituency. The Royal Welsh show is the largest agricultural show in Europe. Each year, it welcomes a quarter of a million visitors to Llanelwedd, just outside Builth Wells. It creates £45 million for the UK economy and, more than that, it is a rich seam in our cultural fabric. For many, it is the highlight of the year—an annual holiday and a chance to catch up with friends right across the agricultural sector. Just before the Royal Welsh show was cancelled for 2020, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport provided the Welsh Government with £59 million to support cultural activities in Wales hit by the pandemic. I find it curious that only £53 million of that money has been made available so far. The Royal Welsh show is one of the biggest cultural events in Wales. It is on a par with the Urdd eisteddfod, which received £3.1 million in support from the Welsh Government. The Royal Welsh show has received next to nothing in comparison. I implore the Welsh Government to consider the rural economy and find some extra funding for the show, which faces an uncertain future.
Support for businesses comes in many forms, not just lifeline funding. Businesses need to know what comes next. We in Wales know that half-term, Halloween and bonfire night are all cancelled. Valuable chances to recover are gone. Where do we go from here? How do we fight the virus on an economic and a public health front after 9 November? The Welsh Government need to come forward with a plan urgently.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing this debate and on the excellent speech he made. I apologise profusely for having to leave before the winding-up speeches, as I must go and chair a Committee.
As my hon. Friend said, this debate on support for people and businesses in Wales during covid-19 comes in the context of the Welsh Government’s announcement that Wales will enter a national firebreak for a fortnight from the end of this week. That is a sensible, proportionate response to the national rise in cases we have seen over recent weeks—we only have to listen, for instance, to national health service staff from the Aneurin Bevan health board on social media to know that. I know it is also something that many of my constituents, while accepting the challenges it will pose—and it will be hard —will understand.
The First Minister’s tone, which encouraged the people of Wales to come together to look after each other and ease the burden on our NHS, was well judged. That is not least because in Newport, which has been under local lockdown since 22 September, we saw our cases drop yesterday to the joint lowest figure in the Aneurin Bevan health board area, along with Monmouthshire, part of which I represent. People in Newport have stuck to the rules, and there are some signs that that is now having an effect, even against the backdrop of a worrying national picture. We thank them for their efforts and their sacrifices at this time, and we also thank those working hard on the frontline during the second wave, who must be exhausted but who are keeping going. We are eternally grateful.
In his announcement on Monday, the First Minister, Mark Drakeford, highlighted the challenges that businesses across Wales are continuing to face. That is why it is good to hear that businesses affected by the firebreak will be supported with the new £300 million fund, which opens next week, on top of the economic resilience fund that has safeguarded 100,000 jobs. It will include payments for businesses covered by small business rates relief; small and medium-sized retail, leisure and hospitality business; and targeted support for struggling businesses, for which it cannot come soon enough. We need to repeat the First Minister’s ask: the Chancellor must give Welsh businesses early access to the new, expanded job support scheme from Friday. The Welsh Government are offering to pay the extra costs to retain staff. I hope that can be resolved quickly.
It goes without saying that the past few months have been incredibly challenging for us all in Wales, and all the more so for individuals and businesses that are falling through the cracks of the support offered by the UK Government. In Welsh questions last week, I spoke up for constituents who are locked out of the Government’s new job support scheme or are deemed to be in unviable jobs. In his response, the Secretary of State invited me to raise individual examples of gaps in Government support that my constituents have encountered. Here are just a few for my constituency neighbour, the Minister.
A worryingly large amount of correspondence has come in from constituents who were denied access to the furlough scheme in the first place, including those on maternity leave; those who are shielding; those made redundant before 19 March, whose previous employer does not agree, for whatever reason, to re-employ them and place them on temporary leave; and many zero-hours contract staff, particularly agency workers. There are also those who started new jobs in March and who have been unable to access support through the furlough scheme. For example, a constituent who started a new job in south Wales in March was told to stay at home after a week in the office. He was later informed that the company could not afford to pay everyone, and he was put on eight weeks’ unpaid leave.
There are also ongoing problems with Government support schemes that affect those who have received support. They include the deeply unfair situation, which is only now becoming apparent, whereby lower paid workers who fall ill after returning to work from furlough risk losing their entitlement to statutory sick pay, as their earnings fall under the limit of £120. I thank Mike Payne of the GMB union for highlighting that, and I think the Government should sort it out.
There are also gaping holes in the Government’s support for the self-employed, including those who work on short pay-as-you-earn contracts. For example, constituents in the creative sector on local film sets have not been covered by the self-employed income support scheme or the job retention scheme. Those I have spoken up for in previous debates who serve as directors for limited companies and draw down their income in dividends currently have no support under either scheme. Those small business owners and directors are often not high earners, paying themselves a nominal salary and taking the rest as dividends.
The new job support scheme is also flawed. An Institute for Public Policy Research report estimates that only 10% of so-called viable jobs will be saved by the package. The truth is that a grant of two thirds of their salary for workers is simply not sufficient for those on the lowest wages, and will make it harder for many of my constituents to pay bills and feed their families, especially in the run-up to Christmas. Government adviser Dame Louise Casey said last week:
“It’s like you're saying to people, ‘You can only afford two-thirds of your rent, you can only afford two-thirds of the food that you need to put on the table.’ There’s this sense from Downing Street and from Westminster that people will make do. Well, they weren’t coping before Covid.”
She is absolutely right that this level of support simply will not cut it. The UK Government should reconsider the policy and listen to the Wales TUC, which has rightly stated that the wage replacement should be at least at the current furlough level of 80%.
Given that two thirds of the national minimum wage is about £800 a month, there is a strong likelihood that many of the lowest-paid workers in Wales, where the average wage is 15% lower than the UK average, will need to claim universal credit under the new job support scheme. That again illustrates the pressing need to address the in-built flaws in the universal credit system, including the five-week wait, which the Work and Pensions Select Committee highlighted yesterday, and the advance loan payment, which pushes people into debt.
Whole sectors of the Welsh and UK economy are facing an uncertain future. In my constituency—my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn has mentioned many of these—the sectors include the exhibition and events industry and its many supply chains, driving instructors, garages, dog kennels, gyms, the wedding industry, and beauty and hair, as well as others. As chair of the all-party group on steel, may I point out the need to help out our steel industry, which we will definitely need if we are to build back greener? I urge Ministers to work with their counterparts in the Welsh Government to produce a road map for recovery for these businesses, particularly those where supply chains frequently cross borders within the UK.
My final point is about lower-paid workers, particularly women, and I draw Ministers’ attention to the excellent report by the Welsh equality charity, Chwarae Teg, “Covid-19: Women, Work and Wales”. What we are going through might be the new normal, but for lower-paid workers in unfurloughed sectors, such as care, retail and the NHS, who are keeping the country going, there is nothing normal about the contribution they are making to keep us safe in the second wave. The lowest paid—those on the living wage—deserve the Government to commit, at the very least, to giving them a raise next year. As I highlighted in Prime Minister’s questions last month, Ministers should confirm that the hourly level will still rise to £9.21 in April. Working people in Wales and across the UK should not be made to pay for this crisis.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is pleasure to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing it.
I, too, believe that the decision that the Welsh Government have taken is absolutely right and necessary to bring the virus under control and to provide certainty to many of the businesses and organisations in my constituency that are deeply worried about the prospect of open-ended periods of restrictions that will cause them much more difficulty than a defined, albeit very difficult, period of restrictions. Many of them are telling me that the confusion, particularly from the Prime Minister, that has been reported in the UK media filters through into Wales and depresses demand and the willingness of people to go out and use local hospitality, for example. It is clear that, with the virus rising in the way that it is, and with the potential impact on the NHS and the potential for even stricter measures to be put into place, this is the right decision at the right time.
It is disappointing that the UK Prime Minister has not taken the same approach despite calls for him to do so. There has been a stark contrast in approach between that taken by Mark Drakeford, the First Minister, and Ministers in Wales, and what we have seen from the Prime Minister. I have similar stories of helpful engagements with the Economy Minister, Ken Skates, when I have brought him concerns on behalf of individual businesses and sectors. However, I will be generous to the Minister and the Secretary of State, who is not with us today, because of the support that they have provided in a number of cases, particularly in the case of the steel industry in my community. Unfortunately, it requires the whole UK Government to be working in concert, and such support has not been forthcoming in a number of other areas. That is disappointing. However, I acknowledge the support the Minister has personally provided on a number of issues, and it is right to acknowledge that.
We have the most comprehensive, nuanced and generous package of financial support, beyond the support from the UK Government, and it has protected 100,000 jobs in Wales. The package of support that was announced at the same time as the proposed measures is crucial in bringing together clarity on public health restrictions with economic support and making sure that the support gets through to businesses. Ken Skates has announced a £300 million support package for businesses and, although it contains multiple aspects, I should just mention that it provides individual payments to those who, for example, benefit from small business rate relief and—of particular concern to my constituency—those small and medium-sized enterprises in the leisure and hospitality sectors that receive individualised payments.
I wish to raise a few specific issues. I have already mentioned the wider implications of confusion. Despite the welcome BBC Wales broadcasts and coverage of statements from the First Minister, the Economy Minister and other Ministers, much of the media reporting on what is happening in England and on the chaos and confusion that we have seen in recent days filters across into Wales. Many businesses and individuals regularly come to me to talk about the tiers and the decisions that have been taken for England. I have raised that point since the start of the crisis, and I know that the Secretary of State for Wales has made attempts to try to be clearer, but that is not often matched by the Prime Minister and others getting up at UK Government press conferences to put information out there. That causes huge confusion not only for businesses and individuals along the border but for others who pick up news from England. There needs to be a real step towards greater clarity on the decisions—whether people agree with them or not—that have been made and why they have been taken. Anything that the Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales can do to help provide clarity, even if there are differences and disagreements, would be helpful. The decisions are taken in Wales, and businesses should know that there is that certainty and clarity about what is happening.
I have raised this many times, but I want to raise again the situation facing many freelancers and those in the excluded groups who have fallen through the gaps in different programmes and packages. Again, I want to praise the Welsh Government for the approach they have taken, particularly on freelancers working in the arts and creative industries, in setting up a freelancer fund. Individuals are not able to benefit in the same way from the large sums that the Chancellor keeps trumpeting as having been given to the arts and creative industries, but the freelancer fund is of course welcome. That package supports many venues and arts and creative businesses in my constituency, but individuals—often the lifeblood of our creative industries—are not eligible in England, although they are Wales, but the demand is huge. If evidence is needed about the hurt and pain going on out there, one has only to look at how quickly people have applied to the freelancer fund scheme in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan in recent days. There have already been two phases, and I am arguing for a third. Many people are struggling and are absolutely desperate for payments to help get them through the next few months. The problem is not related to the lockdown that starts on Friday; it has been going on for months, and we have heard again and again from those who have fallen through the gaps.
I also want to raise the issue of the bureaucracy that businesses face and the fact that the Chancellor has not responded to the very reasonable request from the First Minister to bring forward the job support scheme package. Businesses now have to apply for the furlough scheme at its tail end and then apply for the job support scheme. I know there is a difference in approach and there are different views, and I know that politics is involved, but I am talking about plain common sense for businesses. It would have made a lot more sense for the Chancellor to have brought the scheme forward. If businesses have to continue to apply for the two separate schemes, I urge the Minister to ask his ministerial colleagues to bring forward the funding for the tail end of the furlough scheme as quickly as possible, because we all know that, for many businesses, cash is king. Many are really struggling with their cash flow, and they need the money as soon as possible.
I want to raise a related issue. I am being contacted by many constituents and others facing delays at the UK Government-run testing sites in Cardiff. I have raised the issue with the Department of Health and Social Care. The site is run as part of the Lighthouse lab system. I have had multiple cases come in over the past few weeks of people not getting tests and then having to self-isolate. They are unable to go to work, which is causing financial strain and worry for them, their families and the businesses that they work for. I have raised the matter with the DHSC Parliamentary Private Secretary and others. I urge the Minister to look into that specific case because it relates to the UK Government-run site, not the Welsh Government.
We have seen a methodical, measured, science-led and consultative approach from the Welsh First Minister, our Economy Minister and others in these very difficult circumstances. I will continue to stand available to support all of my businesses and all those who are struggling at the current time. I will continue to make sure they get the right information and access to support. I hope that we see a more measured, methodical, clear and consultative approach from the UK Government going forward. We are going to get through this only if everybody works together and if we take some of the politics out of it. We need to support our residents and our businesses and not make the cheap jibes that we have heard in recent days from the leader of the Welsh Conservatives and their health spokesperson, Andrew RT Davies. It is not helpful, it is deeply damaging, and it is not in line with the facts on the ground.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing this timely and important debate. If there is one thing that 2020 has taught us, it is the unshakable truth that we are far stronger and more resilient when we come together, pool resources, look out for one another, take collective responsibility, and shield and protect the most vulnerable among us.
The health and wellbeing of people, the planet, family, communities and businesses are at the heart of decision making in Wales. I know that the people of Cardiff North, whom I am here to represent, fully understand the gravity of the situation that we face and that no decisions are being taken lightly by the Welsh Labour Government. I am so very proud of the clear, responsible and transparent leadership that the Welsh Labour Government have shown throughout the crisis. They have rolled out the most all-inclusive financial support package for businesses of all the four nations—£2 billion to keep businesses afloat. That has already saved 100,000 businesses across Wales, and is appreciated by many I have spoken to.
I have had many conversations with constituents and exchanges with people and businesses right across my constituency. There is no doubt that it is a very worrying time. We are facing tough times, but these businesses are integral to our communities. Cardiff North would not be the same without Mr Lazarou, the barber’s down the road from my office in Whitchurch; Dave Vater and his Forest café in Tongwynlais; or Fran and Rupert with their fantastic deli, Snails, in Rhiwbina. Hairdressers, beauty salons, cafés, restaurants, the creative heritage and tourism sector—these are the people who put their heart and soul into our high streets and communities and who create jobs in local areas. They must be protected too.
The Welsh Government have also provided grants for the self-employed and a freelance fund for those who have been shamefully excluded from all support from the UK Government since March. They have lost work, yet still have the same bills to pay to keep the roof over their heads and their families fed. Yet again, the Welsh Labour Government have committed to providing support for all where the Tories in Whitehall have been either unable or unwilling to do that. It is no surprise that in a recent constituency-wide survey I conducted, the majority of businesses who responded—78%—said that they far preferred the Welsh Labour Government’s approach to the UK Government’s.
As we approach the short, sharp two-week firebreak this Friday, we see the difficult decisions being taken by the Welsh Labour Government, listening to the scientific advice and taking action where needed. It is at times like these that I am so proud to be Welsh—I know that this view is shared by the majority of my constituents who write and tell me—and so proud to represent a Welsh constituency. The Welsh Labour Government are ensuring a supported firebreak for a short period, rather than a slow decline towards Christmas, which we know is the time that a lot of businesses depend on to secure them throughout the year. The firebreak is absolutely necessary to get back on top of the virus, to suppress the spread of infection and to stop the NHS being overwhelmed.
The Welsh Labour Government stepping in to save lives and provide a generous financial support package is in stark contrast to what we see unfolding in England, which is the UK Government playing poker with people’s lives and livelihoods. In Wales, the Welsh Government are providing £300 million in an enhanced resilience fund for this short two-week firebreak, small business rates relief grants, funding for retail, hospitality and leisure shutting down for two weeks, and a £100 million fund for long-term business development.
The Government in Wales have swiftly provided the clear and quality support that is needed now, as well as keeping an eye on the future. Despite repeated requests from First Minister Mark Drakeford to work with the UK Government, they have continued to ignore our First Minister. The UK Government’s display yesterday towards Manchester shows the deep contempt they have for people’s lives and livelihoods. Never has there been a more important time for us to come together and govern together. This is not governing—the UK Government seem incapable. They are seeking to divide and conquer. It is politicking at best, but it is downright dangerous at a time of national emergency. We need trust and transparency.
I will make some specific requests of the Minister. I hope that the Chancellor responds swiftly to Mark Drakeford’s request to give Welsh businesses early access to the new job support scheme, cutting down paperwork that overstretched and overworked businesses must complete to access it. Will we see outlawed fire and rehire tactics under the guise of covid that few businesses—thankfully—but some practise? Usually, that affects those lowest paid and in the most precarious jobs. Many have contacted me and are desperate to see an end to the practice. Likewise, the £20 uplift for recipients of universal credit has been a lifeline for more than 5,000 people in Cardiff North, the difference between being able to cope and being cut adrift. Economic hardship shows no sign of easing, so will the UK Government extend that uplift to and throughout 2021?
This is a deeply worrying time for everyone, and we have an uncertain future until there is a vaccine. There is no easy fix right now, but I thank the people of Cardiff North and of Wales for making those tough sacrifices and for their continued co-operation. Elsewhere, we have witnessed how division leads to dithering and delay. Ultimately, that is bad for public health, and the uncertainty is bad for livelihoods and for businesses. Coming together is our best chance of defeating this virus.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing this vital debate.
To start, I pay tribute to all those across my constituency and, indeed, across Wales and the UK for doing their bit to fight this pandemic. Community groups in Aberavon sprang into action to help residents across our community, to help with food shopping, prescription pick-ups and so many other forms of support, and often just with acts of human kindness. Demand on our food banks has increased dramatically. I thank the Port Talbot, Briton Ferry, Cwmafan and the Skewen Salvation Army food banks, as well as Age Cymru West Glamorgan for ensuring that those most in need in our community do not go without.
Our key workers have, of course, played an absolutely pivotal role. Our health and social care workers have been right on the frontline of this fight, working so hard in the toughest of conditions. However, so have many of our other unsung heroes, such as our transport workers, waste disposal men and women, food producers, steelworkers and many more who have kept our economy going even during the national lockdown.
Manufacturers have also played a critical role. I visited local Aberavon firms which have shown incredible innovation, flexibility and adaptability in producing essential frontline equipment: BOC kept our Welsh NHS stocked with oxygen; Ministry of Furniture, also in my constituency, flipped on a sixpence to start producing shields and screens for frontline workers; and a company called RotaTherm, which turned its hand to PPE, also moved from its core business to a very different type of activity almost in the blink of an eye. It has been truly inspirational to witness such a community effort.
I have also been profoundly impressed by the response of my local authority, Neath Port Talbot, and of course by the Welsh Government, as many of my hon. Friends have pointed out. Our First Minister has led by example. He has followed the science and provided adequate support for businesses and individuals, where it is the Welsh Government’s responsibility and capability to do so. The £300 million of financial support to firms and workers, to help them through the upcoming firebreak lockdown, is a case in point. That is leadership, and it is truly welcome and much needed.
Contrast that—as a number of my hon. Friends have already observed—with the events in Greater Manchester, where the UK Conservative Government are certainly failing to deliver on their levelling-up rhetoric. One specific issue that my constituents regularly raise is the need for more support from the Chancellor for the self-employed. Creative industry workers have told me that their work has dropped off a cliff, and because of the nature of their employment—short-term pay-as-you-earn contracts, freelance work and so on—many of them fall outside the income support schemes.
We also need far more support for our steelworkers. The Port Talbot steelworks is the biggest employer in my constituency by far, but Tata Steel has fallen through the cracks in the UK Government’s schemes and has yet to receive any emergency funding or loans. It took the French and German Governments just weeks to provide their major steel producers with the finance to cover their short-term cash flow issues—issues that are, of course, due to the impact of the pandemic—yet there still has not been a penny for the British steel industry from the UK Government. They continue to sit on their hands.
Steelworkers are key workers. The steel industry continues to operate and serve our country through the current crisis, and will be critical to rebuilding our economy after it. It is the backbone of modern manufacturing, and it should be noted that every other sizeable economic power in the world has a significant steel industry. It is also far greener to make steel in the UK than it is to import it, and lots of incredible work is taking place in this sector, including the SPECIFIC project at the Innovation and Knowledge Centre on Swansea Bay campus, in partnership with Tata Steel. That project is making steel-based materials that form the basis for photovoltaic cells, potentially turning every building in our country into a power station.
Steel is very much a 21st-century industry, and it is the backbone of our economy and our manufacturing sector. We need our steel industry, yet because of the extraordinary nature of the situation we find ourselves in, that industry can only get through this crisis with Government support. Of course, part of the reason why the steelworks needs this short-term support is that over the past 10 years, the Government have consistently failed to back the UK steel industry with the long-term support it requires. The UK Government have not offered a sector deal similar to those that are in place with industries such as aerospace and construction, and have not done enough to create the policy framework around energy prices, procurement, and dealing with the dumping of steel by countries such as China that is needed to form the foundation for a strong and healthy steel industry. The message to the UK Government is clear: we need our steel. There can be no post-pandemic economic recovery without a strong and healthy steel industry, and the Government should be backing this industry to the hilt.
It is not just the steel industry that the UK Government have failed to back in the long term. The impact of 10 years of austerity on public services in Wales, including a reduction in the Welsh Government’s grant, has affected the ability of local services to meet the challenge that this pandemic poses. Neath Port Talbot Council has had to remove £90 million from its budget since 2010, and is expected to find another £50 million reduction by 2025. Now coronavirus has hit, meaning that like other councils across the UK, both the extra spend and the loss of revenue for Neath Port Talbot Council will run into the millions. This really is going to be a test for public services whose resilience has been undermined over the past decade.
Local councillors need the Chancellor to heed the words of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who promised in May that the Government
“stands with local councils at this difficult time”
and that they would do “whatever is necessary”. So far, there is scant evidence of the UK Government making good on that pledge, but they need to, because “whatever is necessary” needs to mean what it says.
Take also the long-term issue of strategic independence. I recently visited one local company, which has turned its hand to manufacturing PPE for the Welsh NHS in a truly flexible and inspirational way, but what came home to me during that visit was that at that point, there were no Welsh companies making PPE for the Welsh NHS. That is because the whole supply chain had been moved offshore to countries such as China.
Every single one of the firm’s employees who I spoke to expressed their profound concerns about the way in which our sovereign capability had been eroded, to the point where we are left dangerously exposed and over-reliant on other countries. Frequently, those countries are not allies of ours or our national interest and security. The UK Government must understand that when we talk about supporting UK businesses through covid-19, we also need to have an eye to the future, and the reliance and resilience that UK manufacturers would bring to the economy. We cannot go on in a situation where so much of our critical infrastructure is exposed to forces that we cannot control.
Finally, Sir Edward, I want to touch on skilling and reskilling. After the pandemic we are going to need significant investment in vocational training for my constituents and for people across the country, to help them get back into the job market, because, I am afraid, there will be a huge shift of people losing their jobs. We are going to need to retrain those people and bring them back into the labour market.
Skilling and reskilling programmes have frequently been funded through European structural funds in Wales and other economically challenged parts of the United Kingdom. That money will disappear in January, when the transition period ends, leaving a huge black hole. The UK Government have promised that a UK shared prosperity fund will replace EU development funding, but we still know next to nothing about the SPF. How much money will be in the envelope? What development programmes will it cover? What will be the focus of those programmes? Who will be in charge of administering the scheme? There is a tremendous risk that the UK Government will undertake both a money grab and a power grab from the devolved nations with regard to how that development funding is spent. We have even recently heard suggestions that the UK Government plan to funnel money directly into marginal or Conservative-held seats in what can only be described as the worst sort of pork barrel politics.
It is frankly unacceptable that we are just two months away from the day on which the shared prosperity fund is supposed to be launched, yet we have no idea about its overall size, focus or governance. That is yet another example of the UK Conservative Government treating the regions and local areas of our United Kingdom with contempt. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on post-Brexit funding for regions, nations and local areas, I will be working closely with colleagues to hold the Government to account and to ensure that they deliver on their promises.
With those words I close, and simply add that we have seen some inspiring examples in all our local communities. In this time of crisis, we all need to pull together in the interests of those communities, our constituents and our entire country. That will require leadership, investment and a new way of working across our United Kingdom. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on all those issues.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Edward.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing today’s important and timely debate, which comes just a few days away from the new restrictions coming into force in Wales, in the form of the firebreak lockdown between 23 October and 9 November. As the First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, said, that was not an easy decision, but it was taken on the advice of the Welsh Government’s scientific advisers and it is absolutely necessary to regain control of the virus, to protect our NHS and to save lives.
No one in the Chamber is ignorant to the challenges that this will cause to businesses and families in Wales, who have already sacrificed so much as we seek to control the virus. As we have heard, the Welsh Labour Government are putting in place an enhanced package of support, doubling the third phase of their economic resilience fund, making more than £300 million available to Welsh businesses. That builds on what the fund has already achieved, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn and others, supporting nearly 13,000 companies and helping to secure 100,000 jobs in Wales.
Many Members have cited the support Welsh people and businesses have received from the UK Government, primarily through the furlough scheme, and on these Benches we have welcomed that. We are a party that believes in the Union, and it is only right that we pull together and pool our resources, so that we can support one another in times of national crisis.
It is also right to recognise the huge contribution of all partners in supporting local communities. Local authorities in Wales have been at the forefront of ensuring that our crucial public services are maintained; and, of course, local authorities and third sector organisations, working with public health bodies and others, have made a huge contribution to sustaining families and communities. That has included co-ordinating food box schemes, neighbour befriending schemes and other schemes that support residents’ wellbeing and combat loneliness and isolation. I pay tribute also to the work of those in the housing sector—in local authorities and housing associations—who have done much to support their tenants. An example of that was the WithYou campaign launched by Community Housing Cymru.
I do not think I shall have time today to mention all the contributions to the debate in as much detail as I should like, but I want to acknowledge some of the comments that were made by other Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn highlighted the genuine concerns of businesses in Islwyn and across the country. He also rightly highlighted support from the Welsh Government, as well as the lack of regular contact from the UK Government to the Welsh Government and the lack of co-operation from the UK Government at various times during the pandemic.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) talked about the understandable concerns raised by businesses and the tourism sector. I am sure that she will join me in welcoming the additional funding set out in this week’s announcement dealing with the firebreak lockdown, and the additional £20 million that was ring-fenced by the Welsh Government as part of that, specifically for tourism and hospitality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) talked about her gratitude to constituents of hers who have done the right thing. I am sure that we would all echo that, as people in communities across the country have gone through a hugely difficult few months and unfortunately the end is not yet in sight. She also raised the need for early access to the job support scheme—something that was echoed by my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin)—and the need to combat bureaucracy as businesses deal with two schemes in the short two-week lockdown.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth talked about taking the right decisions at the right time, which would contrast starkly with examples of what we have seen from the UK Government. He also mentioned the fact that the Welsh Government have aligned public health with the need for economic support—a crucial link. He talked about the lack of support for those who have been excluded, and contrasted the launch of the freelancers’ fund in Wales with what has happened across the UK, pointing out the huge need for that fund across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North talked about the need to pool resources and the measured approach of the Welsh Government. She also raised the freelancers issue, and requests for early access to the job support scheme.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) talked about the community action that sprang into place throughout the pandemic, of which I am sure we have all seen examples across Wales. Our communities have demonstrated a huge amount of community spirit, and I pay tribute, as I am sure we all do, to the key workers across Wales who have kept our economy going. My hon. Friend raised the need for a steel support fund and contrasted the UK Government’s approach with that of other Governments around the world, who sprang into action a lot more quickly to support their key industries. Of course, he also raised the important issue of the shared prosperity fund, highlighting the fact that in 2018 we were due to have a consultation on it, and two years later, with just two months to go, clarity about the fund is missing. That is a shocking indictment of the UK Government.
The Welsh Government’s inclusive approach has ensured that local government, the third sector and other partners have pulled together in one direction, with a shared interest, to support people across Wales. That is, unfortunately, in stark contrast to the situation we find at Westminster.
It is disappointing to hear some representatives of the Conservative party continually calling into question the justification for the firebreak lockdown, as they have done in recent days. I think that approach is both ignorant and irresponsible. Unlike the UK Government, we have followed the science in Wales. I suggest that Conservative Members actually read the advice produced by the Welsh Government’s technical advisory cell. I have a copy if Members want to pass it on to their colleagues.
We are in the middle of a national and global crisis, and the responsible thing for us all to do is to reinforce the clear public health messages that are designed to regain control of the virus and to save lives. It has not been a happy 24 hours for the Government in their dealings with the nations and regions across the UK. I hope that, when the Minister gets to his feet, he will address some of the genuine concerns and questions that Members have raised on behalf of our constituents. I hope that we will achieve some unity as we work to tackle this dreadful virus and support Welsh businesses and families who are affected at this hugely difficult time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
I am not quite sure how many minutes I have.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
The debate has to finish at 4 pm, so you have plenty of time.
David T. C. Davies
Right. I thank the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) for his comments. He, like many others, including the hon. Members for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) and for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock)—I think everyone did this, actually—mentioned the role played by public sector workers, including local authority workers, teachers and, of course, the police. I want to mention prison officers, because they always seem to get left out. I am not saying that they did any more or less than anyone else, but they have certainly taken risks and, sadly, in my constituency one member of the Prison Service died as a result of covid. I thank all hon. Members for an interesting and perceptive debate, and I will try to respond to as many of the points as I can.
I want to strike a note of unity by saying that covid-19 is the biggest challenge that we have faced for generations. We are tackling this pandemic head-on, and we seek to reduce the risk of transmission and the number of infections and deaths, while minimising the longer-term damage to the economy. I believe that the UK Government have shown clear leadership across the country in fighting the scourge of coronavirus. Every time the UK Government have implemented measures designed to curb the spread of covid-19, we have put in place provisions to support those who are affected, in Wales and right across the United Kingdom.
We started with an additional package of funding in the spring Budget to support the NHS and other public services. We followed that up with support for business through lockdown and beyond, including Government-backed loans, starting with the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme. To date, almost £400 million of UK Government-backed loans have been extended to firms in Wales under that scheme. The bounce back loan scheme, introduced for small and medium-sized enterprises, has supported over £1 billion-worth of loans in Wales. The furlough scheme kept workers in their jobs during lockdown, with the Government paying up to 80% of their usual wage. At its peak, the scheme supported more than 400,000 workers in Wales—around a quarter of the workforce.
The UK Government have pursued a generous approach, designed to work together with all devolved Administrations, and we have given the Welsh Government an up-front guarantee of an additional £4.4 billion of funding, over and above the normal block grant, to help them to deal with the scale and uncertainty of the disruption caused by coronavirus. Various Members, including the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and for Cardiff North—in fact, probably all the Opposition Members who spoke—praised the Labour Government. The hon. Member for Cardiff North seemed to use the words “Welsh Labour” in virtually every sentence, saying, “The Welsh Labour Government have delivered this; they’ve delivered that; and they’ve saved X number of jobs.” I am not denying for one moment that they have done those things, but they did them with the £4.4 billion and all the other money that has been provided to them to deal with this crisis.
It was right that the Welsh Government be given extra funding in order to deal with this crisis. It is perfectly reasonable to praise one’s own political party or Government—we all do that from time to time—but I was disappointed to hear the hon. Lady say that we must all try to work together and take politics out of this, and then not even to acknowledge that the Welsh Labour Government were able to deliver that help, which she spoke about in such grand terms, only because extra money was rightly given by the UK Government.
Anna McMorrin
Does the Minister not agree that the Government in Westminster have acted across the UK in a way that could be described as politicking, at best, and downright dangerous, at worst? He fails to realise that by not engaging with Wales, Scotland and the regions, he and his Government are leaving people desperate and dying.
David T. C. Davies
It is disappointing again that the hon. Lady uses the word “politicking” in one sentence and “dangerous” in the next, and then goes on to suggest that one Government’s approach is leaving people dying. If she wants to talk about poker games, she might want to look at what happened in Manchester, where a Labour local authority leader did everything possible to avoid locking down unless he could get some more money out of the Government. That is playing poker. That is politicking with people’s lives. The UK Government’s approach has been to try and avoid the narrow politicking. That is why you will not catch me saying that a policy that is being pursued by the Labour Government in Wales, even though it may be different from the UK Government’s policies, is causing people to die or causing danger. That is not a comment that I ever want to make.
Anna McMorrin
The Minister is picking on my speech, so I seem to have got under his skin. Can he point out the scientific evidence that the UK Government are following? It certainly is not the scientific evidence that we have seen from our scientific advisers across the country and, specifically, in Wales.
David T. C. Davies
It is not that the hon. Lady has got under my skin, but if she suggests that the UK Government are deliberately leaving people to die, that is something that I have to tackle. As far as the science goes, at the first Cobra meeting I attended—I have attended a few of them when the Secretary of State has not been available—I saw the Prime Minister ask the chief scientific adviser, “How can we save the maximum number of lives?” The UK Government’s whole approach has been about asking the scientists not, “What will be good for the economy?” but, “What will save lives?” The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that a member of the Welsh Government—I cannot remember if it was the Health Minister or the First Minister—was present at that meeting.
I will probably completely mess up my speech, now but I want to talk about co-operation. I have never seen such co-operation between the UK and the Welsh Governments. From the very start, Welsh Government Ministers have been invited along to every Cobra meeting and to the ministerial implementation group meetings, which are at the level below that, where a lot of decisions are also taken. We have had Welsh Government Ministers, SNP Ministers and Northern Irish Ministers there, all listening to the evidence and all taking part in the decision-making process. It is right that that was the case, because we wanted to approach the matter from a UK perspective.
At the same time, it occurred to the Secretary of State for Wales that it might be useful if he or I had some knowledge of what the Welsh Government proposed—not to take part in any decision-making process, but to have an idea of what was taking place. We wrote to the First Minister, pointing out that his Ministers rightly come to many UK-level ministerial meetings and asking if it would be possible for us to attend Welsh Government ministerial meetings—not to take any part in the decisions, and not necessarily even to say anything, but simply to listen and understand the process in Wales—but we received little response.
In the end, we were told that we could perhaps sit in on some of the meetings, but only for the moments where non-devolved matters were being discussed. I think we have had one invitation in the last six months. That is a disappointing lack of co-operation. It is extraordinary to me that anyone has the audacity, frankly, to suggest that the UK Government are not working hand in hand with the Welsh Government, when the UK Government have fallen over themselves to invite Welsh Ministers to these meetings.
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Lady shakes her head, but it is a matter of record that Welsh Government Ministers attend Cobra and ministerial implementation group meetings.
Fay Jones
The Minister is being generous with his time. Is it not the case that people in Wales are tired of this back and forth, and of people playing politics with who has been invited to what meeting? The Opposition’s accusation that we are not working closely is completely false. In actual fact, they do not like it when we disagree. They cannot cope with that, so they say that we are not working together. That is not working together; it is just disagreement.
David T. C. Davies
My hon. Friend makes an important point. [Interruption.] Allow me to give way to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth.
Stephen Doughty
I want to take the Minister back to a specific point. There has been co-operation on a number of issues—I mentioned the steel industry, and that was a good example of close working between the Minister, his fellow Ministers and Welsh Government Ministers with one of my key local businesses and with me—but I do not think it has been consistent throughout. It was not helpful that the Prime Minister did not even speak to the First Minister for many months, even if there was co-operation at other levels.
I want to ask the Minister this question specifically: why can the Chancellor not start the job support scheme that little bit earlier to coincide with the Welsh Government’s decision on a local lockdown? That would make things a lot easier for businesses.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
I think we have had enough debate. Let us all be nice and polite to each other. Everybody here is honourable. Everybody has their own position to make. Nobody is a liar, and nobody has said that anybody is a liar.
David T. C. Davies
On the point made that was made by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, a telephone conversation took place last week between the First Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; I am afraid that I cannot find the relevant part of my speech, but I know that that phone call happened. During that discussion, the First Minister indicated that he would bring forward this lockdown and indicated the date that it would start, and he asked for the financial support that the hon. Gentleman refers to. He was told very clearly that the Chancellor’s new scheme would apply on a certain date, and the Chancellor implored the First Minister not to bring in the lockdown on the dates proposed. The point is that the Chancellor and the First Minister had that discussion and knew each other’s position. The First Minister still decided to go forward with that lockdown, and therefore it is the First Minister’s responsibility to come forward with the proposals to support affected businesses in Wales.
I suppose there is one thing that we all agree on: a lockdown has an enormous impact on business. There is absolutely no doubt about that. It will cause people to lose their jobs and businesses to close—it will leave people worse off. We all agree on that, which is why we are arguing, to some extent, over how much money we can find to support those businesses. If we all accept that, we need to be careful before we introduce lockdowns.
The hon. Member for Cardiff North mentioned the science. The Government are following the science of people such as the deputy chief medical officer, Jonathan Van-Tam, who said—today, I think, or certainly earlier this week—that local lockdowns are working and are likely to be effective. The World Health Organisation said that lockdowns can be effective but should be used as a last resort. The Government have to take account of the fact that although a lockdown can temporarily suppress the number of people going into hospital, it will also have the impact that we all know about on people’s jobs and livelihoods.
In the long term, the inability to diagnose patients with things such as cancer will ultimately have an impact on lives. I was talking recently to a senior, established dentist in south Wales, who told me about the number of referrals each year for oral cancer, which are first discovered by dentists. Because so many dentists are now not operating, or are not operating the same service, fewer people are going to see the dentist. Therefore, fewer people are being referred for oral cancer consultations, and at some point in the future a number of people will lose their lives because of an undiagnosed form of cancer. That is absolutely inevitable; it is just not going to generate a headline.
A responsible Government must take account not only of what is going on here and now in the NHS with covid, but of what will happen in the longer term when people lose their jobs, or when they are not diagnosed as early as they should be for diseases such as cancer. It is a very difficult tightrope to walk. I do not envy anyone in the Department of Health or in No. 10, and I do not envy Mr Gething or Mr Drakeford; they both have a very difficult job to do and I do not doubt that they are doing their utmost. I certainly am not going to play politics or suggest that, because they are taking a slightly different course of action from that of the UK Government, they are doing something dangerous. However, we have a right to question what all of the Governments are doing.
Gerald Jones
As a Union of four nations, it is sensible to have that four-nation approach where possible, but clearly the virus is taking different directions in different parts of the country and there is a need to have that local—devolved or regional—response to things. Whether it is the Mayor of Greater Manchester or the First Minister of Wales, they are clearly in touch at a grassroots level with what is going on in their area. Does the Minister agree that in those circumstances, it is disappointing to hear the example that we have heard about today of the lack of contact between the Prime Minister and the First Minister, which at one stage meant there was something like three months or so without any contact between them whatsoever?
David T. C. Davies
I do not accept that last point, because the First Minister would have been able to speak to the Prime Minister anyway, had he wanted to, and Welsh Government Ministers were dealing with UK Government Ministers on an almost daily basis. I would go as far as to say that, because at a lower level I was involved in the ministerial implementation groups, and I know that during lockdown they were taking place multiple times every week—I will not quite say every single day, but it felt like it. Every day, Ministers from each of the devolved regions were taking part in the decision-making process. I therefore cannot accept at all the argument that there was a lack of contact.
I am told that there were attempts by No. 10 to talk to the First Minister and that he cancelled one meeting, but I do not know the full ins and outs of that. However, I am absolutely certain that the First Minister would always have had access to the Prime Minister had he needed it, and he certainly has always had access to the Secretary of State for Wales. I know that they are talking on an almost weekly basis. It is inconceivable that the Secretary of State for Wales would not take a call from the First Minister; in fact, I am sure that has never happened.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney made the interesting point that it makes sense to have a regional approach, because the virus is breaking out in different ways across the United Kingdom; that is a fair comment. Of course, the same can be said within Wales. There are areas of Wales where the outbreak of the virus is far lower than in other parts of the United Kingdom. Therefore, he may feel that he needs to justify to a tea shop owner in Tenby why there is now a full lockdown taking place in half-term, at a time when that shopkeeper or that tea shop owner would have been hopeful of recouping some of the money that has been lost over the last six months.
I am conscious that the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) must respond to the debate. By the way, he made an excellent speech. I am grateful for the comments he made and I am looking forward to the Henry VII trail that will take place. Of course, by the time Henry VII made that famous march across Wales towards Bosworth, we had already seen the hard border disappear; from the time of Owain Glyndŵr onwards, we have not had a hard border in Wales. Yet, as a result of decisions that are being made at the moment, I fear that it will come back again, which is not something that I, as a Unionist, wish to see.
For as long as this virus continues, the UK Government will want to support all parts of the United Kingdom, and if other Governments or local authorities in other parts of the United Kingdom want to take credit for the enormous help that has been offered, that is absolutely fine by me. I can assure hon. Ladies and Gentlemen here today that we do not want to play politics with this situation; we simply want to eradicate this virus and then get back on with the job of rebuilding Britain.
Chris Evans
May I begin by apologising to you, Sir Edward? I called you Mr Leigh when I should have referred to you as Sir Edward, and I hope you do not think I was being discourteous to you as Chair.
This debate was going very well until the Minister summed up, and then we had an argument for 15 minutes. I pay tribute to everybody who took part. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) talked about how Newport is recovering during its period of lockdown. I thank the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones), who made a very pertinent point about how important tourism is to her constituency. It has been embedded in her constituency for a number of years. As I alluded to when I spoke to the Minister about the Henry VII trail, we are trying to develop a growing tourism industry in constituencies such as mine. They have an industrial past, but we are hoping that we can bring about tourism, and Hallets, which I mentioned, is part of that. Who would have thought that cider would be made in the valleys?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) for being so feisty and causing such an interesting exchange with the Minister. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who made a very pertinent point. In the early days of this pandemic, when the Prime Minister was making announcements, there was a serious concern about whether they applied to Wales. I am glad that has been corrected, because it is a really important issue that we had early on. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who raised concerns about the shared prosperity fund and talked about how we go forward with it. I also pay tribute to my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), for the way he summed up.
I should also mention the Minister. Very often we are on our feet battling with each other, as he did with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North, but we forget how important the work that he does behind the scenes is. He has always been very happy to meet colleagues from across the House if they have an issue, whether over the phone or face to face. I pay tribute to him for that work that he does behind the scenes. We often do not talk about it, and members of the public do not see it, so I thank him for that.
I want to end by saying this. The pandemic is no respecter of political colours or borders. Whatever the Government can do or think they can do, it is up to people on the ground to make sure those measures are in place as we fight this terrible disease. The most fantastic thing that all Members have seen since covid-19 is the way the country has come together. People in communities across the country, whether in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or England, have come together to reach out to their neighbours and friends to make sure they are okay and can get through the loneliness and the mental health issues that come with it. They have banded together, particularly in the summer when we saw a drop-off in the virus infection rates, to ensure that business thrives. I am hopeful that once the pandemic is over, business and the economy will once again bounce back.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for people and businesses in Wales affected by the covid-19 outbreak.
Schools in Kent: Covid-19
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on schools in disadvantaged areas of Kent.
I might add that the schools we are discussing include a number in my constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey.
The list of challenges that we have faced this year, following the outbreak of coronavirus in the spring, is growing longer all the time. Almost every aspect of our lives has been affected by covid-19 and the various restrictions imposed to combat it. One of the areas that has seen the biggest change is our education system, from the move to online learning during the lockdown earlier this year, to the implementation of classroom and year group bubbles when pupils were eventually let back into schools. I want to start my comments by praising school staff and pupils for their tenacity, patience and resilience throughout these challenging times, particularly those in my constituency, of whom I am incredibly proud.
I would like to take this opportunity to mention a number of concerns that have been raised with me. Before doing so, however, I want to stress that I broadly support the Government’s strategy for tackling the covid-19 crisis. The financial support that has been given to so many businesses and schools has been quite extraordinary, and I hope that Ministers will continue to provide whatever help is needed as we fight the second wave of this wretched disease.
Despite the Government’s excellent record, however, we would be kidding ourselves if we believed that everything had gone completely smoothly or that things could not have sometimes been done better. Mistakes have been made—not always by politicians—and we should learn from them as we go forward. Take schools in Kent as an example. They are already facing huge challenges—particularly those in areas of high social deprivation, including in my constituency—and those challenges are being exacerbated by the difficulty that schools face when either a pupil or a member of staff is forced to self-isolate because of possible covid symptoms. My information is that there have been far too many occasions when it has taken too long for pupils and staff to get the all clear when their tests prove negative. Those delays have caused enormous disruption to the running of the schools concerned.
Quite rightly, the Government are determined to keep schools open, even when areas move into higher covid alert levels. However, it is important that they can operate with as little disruption as possible. I believe that, like the NHS and care homes, schools should be given priority when it comes to testing.
One of the main reasons I applied for this debate is that the current covid-19 crisis has exposed the divide between pupils from areas of social deprivation and those in more affluent communities. As I pointed out earlier, there are a number of disadvantaged areas in my constituency, so I know better than most the consequences of social deprivation and how they can have a lasting impact on the lives and ambitions of some people.
Take the Isle of Sheppey, where the majority of 11 to 16-year-olds are educated at the island’s only secondary school. As the Minister will know, it is split between two sites that are 2 miles apart. Many of the more aspirational children choose to travel to the mainland, where there are two grammar schools and three high schools. For some of the youngsters on Sheppey, being disadvantaged begins before the school run. If their parents cannot afford transport to the mainland or are disinclined to take up that choice, the only option is the Oasis Academy Isle of Sheppey.
There is nothing wrong with the Isle of Sheppey academy—in fact, it has come on leaps and bounds since it was first taken over by Oasis—and I certainly do not want my words to detract in any way from the very good work being done to help the young people in its care. For instance, pre-covid, a team of dedicated staff established a taskforce that works with local groups of people and organisations to improve the area around the students and highlight the positives that the island has to offer.
There are many success stories coming out of the Oasis Academy, which, as a result of forward-thinking leadership, is allowing many of its pupils to be proud of who they are and where they come from. However, there are still concerns over those who struggle to break out of the historic cycle of unemployment, which has led to social deprivation and is one of the causes of the lack of aspiration among some young people and their parents. Every child should have the same access to a good education and providing that is difficult enough, even when we have a society that is functioning properly. My inbox proves to me that if we are to achieve our ambition to build back better, we will have to work harder at getting learning for all our young people.
Of course, covid-19 has not helped. Speaking with headteachers in my area, one thing is clear: during the lockdown, there was a lack of IT equipment and internet access, which prevented the most disadvantaged pupils from taking part in online lessons. Just imagine that, Mr Pritchard—locked out of education because you are not one of those lucky enough to have access to superfast broadband.
I appreciate the unprecedented challenges faced by the Government to ensure children continued to be educated during the lockdown. I am sure that Ministers did what they could in very difficult circumstances. However, we must learn from those circumstances and ensure our schools are not left in the same situation again. Such disadvantages in education damage the perceptions that affected pupils have about their peers. It sows division and widens the difference in achievement levels, and ultimately leads to struggles later in life.
That is why I was horrified to hear the account from Alan Brookes, a widely respected headteacher in my constituency and chairman of the Kent Association of Headteachers. Alan told me that the attainment gap between children from different socio-economic groups has grown since the lockdown, not least because children from the more deprived groups were least likely to attend lessons during lockdown, even when they were encouraged to do so. As he pointed out, the challenges he and his staff faced daily were compounded by lengthy delays in the provision of laptops funded by the Department for Education.
Schools did the best they could in the circumstances. The Isle of Sheppey academy loaned out laptops to those of its pupils who did not have access to one at home while in lockdown, or where families had only one device that would have had to be shared. We must also remember that, for a lot of children, the situation at home is not conducive to learning. We must do all we can to prevent a second national lockdown, which to be effective would no doubt have to include schools.
I must tell the Minister that there are also concerns in my area that the catch-up funding is inadequate, because it is spread far too thinly. I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong, but Kent schools will receive £4,237,650 this autumn. That represents £80 for each pupil up to and including year 11. Although I recognise that the money is designed to help pupils who have missed long periods of in-school education, it is going to all pupils, whatever their personal circumstances. I would like to see more of the money targeted at schools in deprived areas that have the pupils who need financial help most.
The Government are under pressure to extend their free school meals scheme. Personally, I believe there is an argument to agree to that in the short term, although I will not be supporting the Labour motion today because it is too open-ended. Who knows what will happen after Christmas? But that is by the by.
If we are to have a free meals scheme with the vouchers, we should once again ensure that it is for the hardest-hit families. However, we must improve the delivery of the vouchers used in the scheme. There were continual problems with the scheme in my local schools, with some people finding it difficult to get hold of vouchers. That led to schools providing meals for desperate families out of their own budgets.
Turning to exams, we saw how the pandemic impacted the GCSE and A-level results season this year. As policy makers, we must take what happened this summer as a black mark against our name. We must learn from it and use it as an opportunity to improve the system. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is working hard with Ofqual to ensure that future examinations are fair, but what assurances will he give students that their grades next year will be as valuable as their predecessors’ this year? What is being done to ensure parity in the education system, especially now, when we have a situation in which lockdowns are becoming ever more likely? How will we ensure that our young people are all assessed on the same criteria when their experiences are likely to be worlds apart?
To go slightly further, there are already concerns in Kent about the plans announced last week for the next block of GCSEs and A-levels. The Government have said that they will give pupils more time to prepare for exams next year, but heads in my area believe that the announced changes will simply widen the attainment gap, because a three-week delay in taking the exams does little, if anything, to compensate for the learning that has already been lost.
That leads me to another concern. No doubt, as we emerge from the pandemic, Ofsted will resume school inspections. I urge my right hon. Friend to insist that inspectors take into account a school’s individual circumstances before assessing it, especially those schools in deprived areas where the delivery of education has been more problematic and where standards and exam results will inevitably be affected. I would like an assurance that otherwise good schools will not be classed as failing as a result of circumstances related purely to the pandemic, which were outside their control.
I now turn to what is becoming one of the biggest issues of our time: mental health. Our young people are resilient and good at bouncing back, and at digging deep and getting on with the task in hand, but we must ensure that we have in place measures to offer support for those who struggle. Alan Brookes tells me that Kent schools are already seeing signs that children from the poorest backgrounds are turning up at school with increased mental health issues. His school, Fulston Manor in Sittingbourne, has been able to refer people to external services, but that is only because staff in the school are being proactive. I am worried that not enough is being done to ensure that pupils elsewhere do not fall through the cracks.
Other things are already creeping up on us, and it is our duty to look at those in our rear-view mirror to ensure that we keep ahead of them. One such thing is higher unemployment. The first roles to go are likely to be those in the more deprived areas of Kent. If left unchecked, that will impact most on those young people leaving school from the poorest backgrounds. Those people who will risk failing are the hard-working youngsters who want to leave school to start making a contribution to our society in the most valuable way. If we are not careful, they will simply join the long-term unemployed. We must avoid that at all costs.
In winding up, I take the opportunity to praise the work of Swale Borough Council and Kent County Council, which have gone above and beyond the call of duty in a bid to ensure that things run as smoothly as possible for pupils and students. Finally, again, I thank my local school staff, pupils and parents for the way in which they have conducted themselves in the face of a difficult and fast-changing situation.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
I felt a little like a contestant in “Just a Minute”, with two seconds left before the bell went. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing the debate and for an excellent opening speech.
Covid-19 has affected everyone but, as my hon. Friend says, children and young people in our most disadvantaged communities risk being acutely affected. It has been this Government’s aim throughout the crisis to do whatever it takes to mitigate the impact on communities such as those in his constituency, including by focusing support on schools in those areas. I begin by outlining that support, specifically addressing the points my hon. Friend made just now.
In March this year, the Government took the difficult decision to ask schools to close to most children, remaining open for vulnerable children, those with education, health and care plans, and the children of critical workers. Throughout that difficult time, I was inspired by the many examples of headteachers and teachers going above and beyond to support their pupils, including in disadvantaged areas of Kent. Throughout, schools have supported one another and shared information with the Department for Education. The regional schools commissioner for south-east England and south London hosted roundtable meetings with academy trusts from across Kent in the summer term, and I am also aware that Alan Brookes, who as my hon. Friend mentions chairs the Kent Association of Headteachers, has been active in supporting his association’s headteachers throughout this time and been supportive of the regional schools commissioner and their team. I am grateful for all those efforts.
Ensuring that schools provide high-quality remote education was and continues to be a key part of our work to support schools. We have invested more than £100 million in remote education. We have already delivered more than 220,000 laptops and tablets for disadvantaged children who would not otherwise have access to the internet, supporting disadvantaged children to stay online and connected with their teachers during the summer term. Of those, 3,563 laptops and tablets were delivered to Kent County Council for children with a social worker and care leavers, and 437 for disadvantaged year 10s in local authority-maintained schools, alongside additional devices delivered to academy trusts in the area. I am pleased to see that some schools have supplemented Government support to make devices more widely available. As my hon. Friend said, thanks to the team at the Oasis Academy on the Isle of Sheppey, all pupils in years 10 and 13 have access to a computer.
We are now supplementing that support by making available an additional 250,000 laptops and tablets for disadvantaged children in years 3 to 11 in the event that face-to-face schooling is disrupted as a result of covid-19 outbreaks or local restrictions. As my hon. Friend says, it is not acceptable for a child’s internet connection to determine their educational outcomes. That is why we have also provided more than 50,000 4G routers to help disadvantaged children get online. Of those, 500 4G wireless routers were delivered to Kent County Council for children with a social worker and care leavers, and 255 for disadvantaged year 10s in local authority-maintained schools, alongside additional 4G wireless routers delivered to academy trusts in the area. We are also working with the major telecommunications companies to improve internet connectivity for disadvantaged and vulnerable families. The Department is piloting an approach where mobile networks will provide families who rely on a mobile internet connection with temporary access to free additional data, offering them more flexibility to access the resources they need the most.
The steps taken to provide remote education and initiatives such as the Oak National Academy have helped ensure the continuity of education for pupils during a uniquely difficult time. We know that time out of school will have created gaps in educational attainment. To address that, it was imperative for schools to fully open. The Government have successfully supported pupils in all year groups and from all types of schools to return to school full time from the beginning of the autumn term. Figures show that, as at 15 October, 99.7% of state-funded schools were open, with approximately 89% of all children enrolled in all state-funded schools in attendance.
We are continuing to do everything in our power to ensure that every child can be back in their classroom safely. This is the best place for them to be for their education and their wellbeing and development. This has not been an easy undertaking. School leaders, teachers and support staff have worked tirelessly to ensure that their schools are open and safe for children and young people, and I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the very significant efforts during this very challenging time. I know that all schools are working to ensure that remote education can continue for children in the event that they cannot attend school because of covid-19. For example, the Department has recently discussed remote education arrangements with the Stour Academy Trust which operates on the Isle of Sheppey. It is confident that its teachers are prepared to deliver remote education. In the event that bubbles of children need to isolate, live online lessons will be delivered, covering the same content as they would have covered in school. Systems are in place to check the engagement of pupils and to monitor their progress.
The Department continues to work closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that staff and pupils have priority access to testing, an issue that worries my hon. Friend. We are supplying coronavirus test kits directly to schools for those who develop symptoms and face significant barriers to accessing a test through existing routes. These test kits will help symptomatic staff who test negative and who are not close contacts of confirmed cases to get back to work as soon as they feel well enough. We are also keen to explore new testing technologies as they become available and to understand how those kits could be utilised for the benefits of the education sector. Small-scale pilots are beginning this week to help us better understand how they can be operationalised in schools. Those technologies will form the foundations for delivering mass testing: testing large numbers of people in a short period of time with test results made available quickly so that those tested can be reassured more quickly that they are not infected or will isolate themselves more quickly if they are. This will help to protect those at high risk, to find the virus and to help schools to get back to normal.
The Government have provided considerable support to schools to help them tackle these challenges. We have invested in schools financially in three key ways. First, the Government are providing a package of additional support worth £1 billion to ensure that schools have the support that they need to help children and young people make up for lost teaching time. The figure that my hon. Friend quoted for mainstream school support for schools in Kent is correct, although more than £4.5 million has already been allocated if we include special schools. It is important to remember that this is just an initial allocation with further allocations to come. This is on top, of course, of the £2.6 billion increase this year in school budgets nationally.
Of this package, £650 million is being provided in the form of a universal catch-up premium for all schools. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, all children have had their education disrupted but, as he says, disadvantaged children will have been the hardest hit. That is why, alongside the universal catch-up premium—the £80 that he referred to—we are also launching a national tutoring programme to provide additional targeted support for those children and young people who will need the most support to catch up. All schools should use their catch-up premium funding as a single total from which to prioritise support for all pupils guided by the level of individual need. Even the amount that he referred to as being spread thinly—£80 per pupil and £80,000 for an average comprehensive school—is free to be targeted by schools where they think it is most required.
Secondly, the Government have worked with schools and communities to provide school food vouchers to support families in need. We recognise that there were initial problems with the system but, ultimately, more than 20,350 schools have placed orders for the scheme and more than £380 million has been redeemed into supermarket e-gift cards by schools and families. That included cover over Easter, May half-term and the summer holidays.
Thirdly, the Department has been supporting schools financially with the additional costs they may have occurred between March and July as a result of the pandemic. Schools have already received payments of £58 million in respect of their claims against those expenses, more than £2 million of which has been received by schools in Kent. We have also ensured that the schools in most need have access to expert support. In May 2020, the Department began the school-to-school support recovery offer to any school identified as vulnerable because of the covid pandemic, with up to five days of support from a system leader. In the summer term, the recovery offer supported about 300 schools, helping them to open to prioritised year groups. In the autumn term the offer was extended and a further 100 schools are being supported to reopen effectively. Some 10 schools in Kent are currently receiving support, and we continue to work with trusts and local authorities to identify others that may require support.
Gordon Henderson
My right hon. Friend mentioned schools receiving the same amount of money, which they could spend how they wanted and could channel towards disadvantaged pupils. That does not cover what happens if that same amount of money goes to a school that does not have any disadvantaged pupils. That was the point I was trying to make. We have got to target schools in disadvantaged areas, rather than those in affluent areas.
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend makes a valuable and important point. However, the sum of money is very large. We have secured £1 billion for the single task of catching up. In the schools he refers to, even the most assiduous pupil, who is working hard at home, will have lost education compared to being in the classroom. We wanted to ensure that there was money for all schools to address that concern, but I take his point.
While it is right that school leavers are supported, it is also right that parents, such as those in the constituency of my hon. Friend, understand how well their child’s school is serving them. For that reason, it is important that we plan for routine inspections to return from January, although that date is being kept under review. The point my hon. Friend makes is good, and I can assure him that, when they do return, Ofsted inspectors will be sensitive to the impact of the pandemic on schools.
My hon. Friend also raises the important question of exams. Assessment by exam will be part of a normalised year for this year’s cohort. We continue to believe that exams are the best and fairest formal assessment. We continue to work with Ofqual and sector representatives to consider the best approach. Above all, the Government want to ensure that the system is fair and robust.
My hon. Friend is right to raise the important issue of mental health. As well as supporting schools to get back on their feet and supporting pupils to catch up with their education, it is critical that the Government support the wellbeing of pupils and their teachers. The Department has worked with key partners, including the Department of Health and Social Care, Health Education England, Public Health England and voluntary sector organisations to launch the wellbeing for education return project.
The project, which is backed by £8 million, is training local experts to provide additional advice and resources for schools and colleges to help support the wellbeing, resilience and recovery of pupils, staff, parents and carers in the light of the ongoing impact of covid-19. It will give staff the confidence to support pupils, students and their parents, so that they know how and where to access appropriate specialist support, where needed. Kent has been one of the mental health trailblazers. In May 2020, two mental health support teams were established in Thanet and Medway, building on the four existing teams in Kent. That all comes out of the Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health.
Mr Pritchard, I am extremely grateful, as we all are, for the exceptional efforts that schools, academy trusts and Kent County Council have made to support pupils, including those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, during this challenging period. We know we have the professional knowledge and expertise in the education system to ensure that pupils and students recover, and get back on track, and help to ensure that this dreadful pandemic does not have a long-term impact on young people’s opportunities and life chances.
Question put and agreed to.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. I suspend the sitting for two minutes.
External Private Contractors: Government Use and Employment
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government use of external private contractors and effect on employment.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. The question before the House is the use of external private contractors and its effect on employment. I am grateful to hon. Members for participating in this important debate. The recent pandemic has shone a spotlight on public sector procurement and the awarding of contracts. Although it is incumbent on the Government to ensure value for money for the taxpayer and quality of service delivery, they also have a duty, whether they like it or not, to those workers tasked with delivering services on which both Government and public rely. I believe that, on all fronts, the Government are failing in their responsibilities in that regard and so are failing taxpayers and workers alike.
Recent examples include the likes of Serco, which has received beyond hefty sums of taxpayer cash to run a failed test and trace system. The revolving door of Government, ex-Ministers and outsourcing companies is pernicious in every sense and does little to instil public confidence in a method of service delivery that is fundamentally flawed. I hope that other Members will speak more on this Government failure as the debate progresses. They will no doubt highlight other examples of failed contracts worth hundreds of millions of pounds.
I have chosen to concentrate on the example of civil service facilities management work in this speech, but if we substituted for the civil service nearly every NHS trust, many councils and other public sector bodies, my observations would unfortunately still be valid. The experience of the civil service is generally the same as that across the public sector, but I particularly wanted to concentrate on the civil service, as I am hoping that Ministers will now start to consider the outsourcing model itself.
It goes without saying that if workers win improvements through union action, that immediately has an impact on the outsource company’s bottom line. Those companies, especially where there is no trade union recognition, then tend to try to recoup lost revenue by cutting staff or their working hours. There are natural limits to productivity gains made through cutting staff. Inherently, the model is unstable and leads to companies running into financial difficulties.
Let us look at the Mitie-Interserve merger. My argument is well illustrated by the announcement in June that Mitie and Interserve’s facilities management arm are to merge at the end of the year, subject to shareholders approving a £271 million share purchase. In reality, Mitie is taking over Interserve. Both companies hold a number of civil service and public sector contracts, worth more than £2 billion of public money. Mitie’s biggest contract is for the provision of in-country and overseas escorting for the Home Office. That contract is worth £514 million. Interserve’s biggest contract is the Department for Work and Pensions estate and facilities management contract, worth £225 million.
Interserve has clearly been in financial difficulty for some time. Last year, it went into pre-pack administration. At that time, the Labour party called for a temporary ban on Interserve bidding for public contracts, but that call was not heeded. We know that Interserve was awarded a five-year facilities management contract worth £670 million by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in early August 2018. Shortly after that contract was awarded, Interserve moved to cut staff, and Public and Commercial Services union members went into a long-running dispute over job cuts, pay, sick pay entitlement and trade union recognition. The company issued profit warnings in March 2015, then two more in 2016, and another as recently as 2018.
Mitie has been involved in multiple disputes with its employees: we can cite the Royal Opera House, the Houses of Parliament, First Great Western, London Underground, and various NHS hospitals. It was subject to an investigation into its MiHomecare business by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for paying its employees less than the minimum wage. Industrial relations in Mitie are so bad that in March 2019, Unite the union said that it should be barred from acquiring contracts due to its woeful treatment of its workforce. That Unite warning is interesting, as even a few months ago it was clear that Mitie and Interserve were considering a deal.
This is where the similarities with Carillion might be interesting to consider, so what can we learn from the lessons of Carillion? The report of the joint inquiry by the Select Committees on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and on Work and Pensions recommended
“that the Government immediately reviews the role and responsibilities of its Crown Representatives in the light of the Carillion case. This review should consider whether devoting more resources to liaison with strategic suppliers would offer better value for the taxpayer.”
I do not know whether that recommendation was acted on in relation to facilities management contracts in the civil service, but it does not appear to have been exercised in this instance to scrutinise Mitie and Interserve.
Moving on to the issue of inequality in pay and employment terms, each civil service department has to comply with the public sector equality duty. The civil service does not have to award contracts where only the minimum wage is paid, statutory sick pay is given, and trade union recognition is not a right. It could choose to make the payment of the real living wage, full sick pay from day one, and trade union recognition a condition of the contract, as many local authorities have begun to do.
Research carried out by the PCS union shows that only two of the 23 ministerial Government Departments pay the real living wage to their facilities management outsourced workers, and no Department includes a policy of paying more than the statutory sick pay as a requirement of awarding a contract. Departments know that in their major urban areas, cleaners, security guards and so on are predominantly of black, Asian and minority ethnic origin, and nearly all cleaners are women regardless of where they work. From the observations of the PCS union, as relayed to me, senior managers and certainly Ministers believe that outsourcing work means they have no responsibility to those facilities management workers, whether in terms of pay, terms and conditions of employment, equality of treatment, or health and safety.
If we look at that indifference to health and safety obligations, we find that even though health and safety laws put clear obligations on civil service departments and facilities management companies working in the same buildings to co-operate and co-ordinate their health and safety at work—that is, regulation 11 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999—in reality we have had immense difficulty in getting the civil service to comply with the law. That indifference leads to what we see as a grotesque admission by the Cabinet Office, which we take as a proxy for the civil service, that it does not know how many facilities management workers have died due to covid, let alone their ethnicity. We know that at least six facilities management outsourced staff have died owing to the virus, all of them of BAME origin.
Turning to the issue of sick pay, in a recent survey—again conducted by PCS—86% of outsourced facilities management workers who responded said that they had often continued to work when they had been unwell because they could not afford to take time off sick.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I thank my Unison comrade for giving way. To support that particular proposition, there is a Unison briefing that shows that in schools in England, many of the private companies are only paying statutory sick pay. Does the hon. Lady agree that this puts people in the position of having to choose between statutory sick pay and going into work, which is more likely to spread the virus?
Paula Barker
Sadly, I concur with the hon. Gentleman’s observations. Covid-19 has brought into sharp focus the inequality between the sick pay provisions of civil servants and those of outsourced workers employed on civil service contracts.
Through PCS talks during covid-19, most civil service departments adopted a policy of paying their outsourced staff full pay for covid-19-related absences until the end of June 2020. From July 2020, Cabinet Office guidance was updated to allow the arrangement to continue where appropriate. As part of PCS’s campaign to defend and extend the right to full sick pay, it wrote to the Prime Minister in June, setting out the case for all outsourced Government workers to be paid full sick pay from day one. Disappointingly, there has been no response.
Does outsourcing facilities management services achieve social value? The simple answer is no. Section 1(3) of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 requires a public sector authority to consider how a procurement
“might improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of the relevant area”.
When awarding central Government contracts, the Cabinet Office is obliged to consider the wider social benefits of procurement to ensure that cost does not override other Government considerations.
I want to take the opportunity to thank you, Mr Pritchard, for overseeing today’s debate. Let us move forward by initiating an open, frank and honest debate, with which I hope the Government will actively engage in the coming period. Value for money is not always delivered by the current procurement and outsourcing arrangements. For a Government who claim to pride themselves on hating waste, the reality is that nothing could be further from the truth.
The Government should be ambitious and see what services can now be brought back in-house. Fundamentally, the truth remains that when workers are paid properly and valued, productivity is better. After a long, difficult year for so many workers, the Government have often waxed lyrical. It is high time that politicians clearly show whose back they have—the cleaners, the contact tracers, the security staff and all manner of low-paid staff, or the directors of outsourcing companies.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
I am going to set an informal time limit of three minutes, but if colleagues could be a bit quicker we might have some time for a two-minute reply later. Obviously, there are five minutes for the Scottish National party spokesman and the shadow Minister, and 10 minutes for the Minister. Thank you for your co-operation.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am delighted that my first contribution in Westminster Hall is to a debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) on an issue that I care about deeply.
I declare an interest: for decades, I have been active in the Labour movement and it was my great privilege to have served for four years as regional secretary of Unite the union in the north-west. In that role, I represented thousands of outsourced workers right across the north-west, in sectors as diverse as manufacturing, care and catering. I saw at first hand how outsourcing has fostered a culture of low pay and insecure employment. Successive Governments have justified the race to the bottom on workers’ rights as a price worth paying for greater efficiency, flexibility and value for money for the taxpayer.
The Institute for Government reported last year, however, that a string of high-profile outsourcing failures had wasted millions of pounds, delivered poor services and undermined public trust. The collapse of Carillion in 2018 left the Royal Liverpool Hospital building years behind schedule, while the Government continued to award £660 million in public contracts to Interserve just months before it went into administration. In both cases, it was the taxpayer who was left footing the bill, and workers and service users suffered.
This devastating pandemic has truly laid bare the deep failings of outsourcing. This week, we learned that the Government’s outsourced Serco test and trace system has failed to track almost a quarter of a million people who have been in close contact with someone infected with covid-19. On the Wirral, just under 59% of people who have potentially been exposed to this terrible virus have been contacted in the last week. Instead of the world-beating system that the Prime Minister promised us, we have absolute chaos.
It is not just Serco test and trace that has made private companies an absolute fortune at a time when everyone else is making enormous sacrifices to win the war on this terrible disease. External providers have profited at every level of the Government’s response to covid-19. In fact, the British Medical Association has this month reported that the Government’s focus on external providers has left public facilities often underused and ignored. A vast range of companies have been paid to produce, store and distribute personal protective equipment, manage the logistics of drive-in testing and onboard returning healthcare workers into the NHS. That is despite the evidence showing that local public health teams are best placed to respond to this deadly virus.
The Government continue to shell out millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to their friends in the private sector who simply cannot do the job. Meanwhile, the Chancellor has the audacity to say that the Government can afford to pay furloughed workers in my constituency only a measly two thirds of their wages, while quibbling over the expense of providing free school meals to vulnerable children during the holidays.
The Prime Minister has said that there are lessons to be learned from his handling of the covid-19 crisis. That is unusual for him and is quite an understatement. One of the clearest lessons of all the outsourcing is that it has been a failed project. As we face the worst economic crisis in recent history, we need more than ever to put social value at the heart of national and local procurement strategies. That means creating secure and well-paid jobs, improving employment rights and promoting ecologically sustainable developments. It means creating economic growth that feeds back into our communities, rather than just lining the pockets of a handful of shareholders. We can do all of this and more, but only if we stop handing millions to private companies and invest in the public sector.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I first wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker). In the short time she has been here, she has made a great contribution to the House. She has also made a great contribution to our party and to the union movement, where she spent many years on exactly these sorts of issues.
In May, the Prime Minister promised us a world-beating track and trace system. What we have instead is a system in disarray. The NHS Test and Trace system is not run by our national health service. Frankly, it is offensive to link the NHS with the shambles that the Government and the private sector have created. Our track and trace system is provided by Serco, the outsourcing giant responsible for a plethora of well-documented scandals. There was the electronic tagging scandal for which it was fined £23 million by the Serious Fraud Office. There was the extensive cover-up of sexual abuse of vulnerable women at Yarl’s Wood, and there is the ongoing scandal of asylum seekers’ accommodation and the “squalid, unsafe, slum housing”—not my words, but those of the chief executive of the Refugee Council. And Serco won a further £2 billion of contracts from the Home Office last year.
Why do the Government choose to award contracts worth hundreds of millions to run track and trace during a deadly pandemic, in what is literally a life-or-death situation? Why have the Government ignored the recommendations of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies and the BMA? Would it not make more sense for track and trace to be run by local public health experts? My Labour colleagues and I have been asking such questions since the contracts were awarded, but answers have not been forthcoming.
The problems that have since arisen have shown the Serco system for what it is: completely unfit for purpose. By the end of August, after a month of encouraging British people to eat out to help out, and around the time the Government launched their back to work campaign, track and trace was failing to contact more than 30% of those who had been in contact with someone who had tested positive. Only 40% of test results were being returned within 24 hours. Since then we have seen lockdown after lockdown. Both lives and livelihoods have been put at risk because of a Government so wedded to the private sector that they are unwilling to admit their mistakes and give oversight to local health protection teams who, by the way, have reached 97% of close contacts of those testing positive, in contrast to Serco’s 62%.
It is not really a surprise that the system is doing so badly when we consider that staff employed by Serco to work on track and trace have spoken of days without contact from supervisors, or without being given any work to do. They are paid the minimum wage while Serco’s profits have surged. Low-paid, badly trained workers are not to blame for the failure of track and trace. The Government’s ideological obsession with outsourcing and subcontracting is. Track and trace has failed, testing is in chaos, and the track and trace app is mired in a multitude of technical issues.
In early February I was forced to self-isolate for two weeks after attending a conference where there was a coronavirus patient. I could not be told by the system at that time whether I had been in contact with that person or not. When I returned here, I asked the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to introduce a track and trace app. He promised to look at it. Now, more than eight months later, we still do not have a working app.
Months of sacrifice and a Herculean effort on the part of the British people have been given scant regard by the Government. Now we have businesses on the brink and whole industries—tourism, hospitality and the arts, to name but a few—at serious risk of collapse. We are in recession and unemployment is climbing. No one is asking the Government for instant medical solutions to coronavirus, but we need a track and trace system that works to keep the public safe, delivered by local authorities with knowledge of the communities that they serve—not private profiteers, costing both public money and the public’s lives.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker)—my former employer, no less—for securing the debate. I draw Members’ attention to my membership of trade unions and donations from Unite, as set out in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I also thank the PCS union, which represents more than 8,000 workers employed by private companies on Government contracts, for its ongoing work in this area, particularly its campaign to bring outsourced jobs back in-house, and for continuing to apply pressure on contractors and the Government to pay a real living wage—the one calculated by the Living Wage Foundation, not the one appropriated in a public relations stunt by former Chancellor George Osborne—while continuing to fight for workers to have access to the terms and conditions afforded to their civil service counterparts.
Last year I was proud to join more than 200 PCS members in my constituency of Stockport when they took industrial action over workloads, staffing levels and the oppressive working conditions that they were forced to endure while working on universal credit reforms. The level of outsourcing, cost to the taxpayer and general wastage of hiring private contractors in my region of Greater Manchester alone is truly eye-watering. It is a legacy that we have been forced to endure since the Thatcher era, and it has been a 30-year-long failed experiment.
Almost three years on from the collapse of Carillion, described at the time as the largest ever trading liquidation in the UK, lessons have failed to be learned and it is slowly coming to light just how entrenched outsourcing has become in this country. In my region alone, the Manchester Evening News was able to unearth Carillion’s involvement in 10 major public and private sector projects, including Network Rail electrification, the M6 smart motorway work, High Speed 2, Airport City and Owens Park. It was also heavily linked to Greater Manchester schools, roads and basic services, through contracts with Manchester, Tameside, Rochdale and my own local authority, Stockport Council. In my borough, a Carillion offshoot was contracted to handle estates, assets and facilities management at various sites.
That is all part of a staggering 10-year £100 million deal that was signed in 2014 to handle key development services. Private contracting permeates every single stratum of our society, from Stockport Town Hall to Greater Manchester police. With local authorities already strapped for cash by central Government, how can it be right that they sign off multimillion-pound contracts with companies that often have little to no track record of delivery, as we have seen most recently in the Government’s decision to outsource covid test and tracing to Serco? Months later, we still do not have a functioning system like those of our European partners.
What is worse is that, despite paying such exorbitant fees to private contractors, nothing is put in place to ensure that workers are treated with dignity. For example, earlier this year the PCS union led a month-long walkout in response to Interserve’s treatment of its staff, who were maintaining the then Foreign and Commonwealth Office premises. The move was the longest period of strike action in the history of the Foreign Office—all because Interserve was not prepared to recognise trade unionised workers and was continuing to drive down its staff through measures such as reducing working hours.
It is not much to ask in return for multimillion-pound, multi-year contracts that these organisations recognise trade unions. As we have seen time and again, these companies will never prioritise workers’ wellbeing over private profit. It is time to end that practice once and for all, bring these contracts back in-house and finally deliver the services that we so desperately need, efficiently and in a fiscally responsible way, if we are to kickstart our economy again and recover from this crippling pandemic.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) on securing this important debate. Civil service numbers have gone down in key Departments—the Department for Work and Pensions, the Home Office, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department of Health and Social Care—by between 30% and 50%, most drastically in the last couple of years.
They are the services that are most needed by the public. Yet the outsourced market has an annual turnover of £82 billion. Research by Unison shows that £9 billion has been paid in total cost overruns on 105 outsourced IT contracts in central and local government, the NHS and other public bodies. No one can ignore the latest disastrous privatisation of the test, track and trace system, where some consultants are paid £7,000 a day. That is just under half of what civil servants on the lowest AO grade outside London earn in a year.
Despite its failure, Serco is set to generate between £160 million and £165 million in profits this year, thanks to its covid-19 contracts. Last year, the CEO, Rupert Soames, pocketed an estimated £4.5 million. It is not about the money, and nor is it about effectiveness. Serco’s test, track and trace contract is running at 67% effectiveness, compared with the 97% effectiveness of local public health teams. This is the same Serco that was fined £2.6 million for shortcomings in relation to a contract for asylum seekers’ accommodation in January 2020 and that paid £22.9 million to the Serious Fraud Office under its tagging contract, where it claimed for returned, released or even dead clients.
As long as someone is a friend of this Government, their ability to deliver is irrelevant. Now it appears that Serco may be awarded a contract to run interviews with vulnerable asylum seekers for the Home Office. The PCS union has serious concerns that the Home Office is cynically using the covid situation to bring in privatisation through the back door, and I agree with those concerns. Outsourcing is most certainly not about improving terms and conditions—look at the ISS cleaners, in dispute with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for several months, including in my Liverpool constituency, over the failure of companies to pay a living wage or afford them the sick pay and holiday entitlement of their directly employed counterparts. Now the same company is bidding to take on HMRC’s security contract, which will lead to more job losses.
The rationale behind the massive outsourcing of public sector work to the private sector is driven by ideology and nothing else. It leads to job losses, insecure contracts, lower wages and worse terms and conditions, but bigger profits for the Tory donors. I am fully behind our public sector unions—PCS, Unison and Unite—in fighting back for a living wage, secure jobs and decent terms and conditions and to save the public purse money, because it is becoming increasingly clear that privatisation is not about saving public funds.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) on securing this important debate.
Many elements of the UK’s public services that have been central to the response to covid-19 have been outsourced in recent years. The NHS supply chain, which is responsible for delivering personal protective equipment, was privatised in 2006. Since the disastrous Health and Social Care Act 2012, NHS outsourcing and privatisation has been incentivised. In the last five years alone, private companies were handed £15 billion of NHS contracts.
According to research by We Own It, the Government are wasting as much as £10 billion a year on running an internal market in the NHS. Every penny spent on NHS privatisation and outsourcing is a penny less spent on patient care. The amount we spend on the internal market would be enough to pay for 72,000 nurses and 20,000 doctors. It is the same pattern of privatisation and deregulation that has decimated many of our essential services since the 1980s, across the transport, energy, water, mail and healthcare sectors. The British public tend to pay more for these services than similar European nations, simply to enrich shareholders.
During the coronavirus pandemic, outsourcing has increased at an alarming rate. After suspending commissioning rules, Government Ministers have awarded exclusive coronavirus-related state contracts worth more than £10 billion to private companies. We only have to look at examples such as Randox. The Government have also spent £12 billion on a failed test and trace programme, which prioritises the enrichment of private corporations over the protection of our communities.
Outsourcing does not just result in dangerously worse outcomes. As many trade unions, inducing Unite, PCS, Unison and others, have made clear, the incentivisation of outsourcing has a devastating impact on workers’ rights. Across the board, outsourcing has reduced wages, increased workloads, provided minimal sick pay, and delivered worse conditions and, in many cases, worker exploitation.
Following the return of full school opening, Unison has begun a campaign to get all private companies that deliver services in schools to pay full sick pay. I support that important campaign, and I call on the Government to extend sick pay and full working conditions to all workers, no matter their terms and conditions.
I will end on this. The pandemic has demonstrated that an over-dependence on the private sector weakens our national ability to act in a time of crisis. For the sake of public health, the Government must reassess their ideological commitment to outsourcing and privatisation.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing this really important debate. As a member of the PCS trade union, I wish to speak about the use of private firms across the justice system. Millions of pounds have been wasted on outside agencies and contractors throughout the court reform programme under Tim Parker.
The ideological obsession with the private sector goes far beyond the courts. Last month, dozens of civilian enforcement officers employed by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service were transferred to the private sector after years of failed attempts to outsource that sensitive work. One of the two contractors, Marston Holdings Ltd, immediately put its newly transferred workers at risk of redundancy, blaming the anticipated impact of covid-19 on its workload. The courts service expressed surprise and disappointment at the move, but made no attempt to protect its staff when warned about it before the transfer. PCS insists that HMCTS is the only Government agency to transfer staff into a known redundancy situation. I wholeheartedly agree with its concerns about that behaviour. Had the courts service initiated a pre-transfer redundancy process, the affected staff would have had official union representation throughout this traumatic process. Instead, they have been left high and dry because Marston refuses to recognise PCS.
Another example of the private sector profiting from our justice system is the new generation of private prisons that are in the pipeline. At least five of the next six jails are set to be run by the private sector. Astonishingly, private prisons do not reveal how many staff they employ, and nor are their minimum staffing levels specified in contracts, yet it is widely accepted that prison understaffing leads directly to extra violence. Private prison operators, just like all corporate privateers, exist to maximise profit for shareholders, and that means slashing costs—especially staff costs—to the bone. No wonder private prisons are an average of almost 50% more violent than public prisons, according to Guardian research last year. I urge the Government to hold an independent inquiry into why private prisons are more violent than public prisons before awarding any more private prison contracts, and to ensure that minimum staffing levels and union recognition are requirements for all private prisons.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing this debate on a really important issue. Outsourcing is a scam, an illusion, a con and an opportunity for jargon-filled management consultants to do a flashy presentation about how they can save a few quid from the bottom line, in the short term, at least. In the long run, the costs are high in lost expertise and lost capacity, and the biggest cost of all is for those long-suffering employees who end up on inferior terms and conditions, if they have a job at all.
Public and private sector companies alike have been seduced by the outsourcing mirage. The savings that are dangled in front of them are not cost-free or painless. In almost every situation, the majority of the savings come directly from the employees, either by paying them less or by having fewer of them. Of course, in theory, employees’ terms and conditions are protected under TUPE, but as an EU regulation it is now at the mercy of the Government, who could decide to water it down or get rid of it at any moment. TUPE does not need watering down; it needs strengthening. There are many ways that employers can evade TUPE protections, both in terms of dismissals and changing terms and conditions after a transfer—if they could not, a major incentive for outsourcing would be removed at a stroke.
Why would anyone want to give up sick pay, overtime rates or other benefits accrued over, say, 20 years of employment just because the name over the door has changed? Is not the loyalty of the employee who has given more than half their life worth more than a factual reference and a redundancy payment that might be able to buy them a second-hand car at the end of the situation? Employers may say that that is not what they want to happen, and that when they outsource employees, they do not want to see anyone suffering, but that is what happens all too often. Every time, that is because the original employer has washed their hands of the situation. They have outsourced their employees, and they have outsourced their legal obligations, but they have not outsourced their moral responsibilities, and they will know, from the moment the transfer takes place, that the clock is ticking.
Insecurity is baked into the workplace, and it is given rocket boosters by the outsourcing industry. It is little wonder that so many people feel a sense of helplessness. It does not have to be this way. Job security should be a basic right in a civilised society, but we see the outsourcing poison spreading everywhere at the moment. Often, the lowest-paid members of society suffer the most, being forced to give up hard-won terms and conditions, with little that can be done to challenge that.
Such are the warped priorities of this Government that that happens at the same time as the obscenity of contractors getting paid £7,000 a day to run the abysmal test and trace system. Never has the contrast been starker, and never has the need for change been greater. Let us use the power of public sector finances to be a force for good, let us keep things in the public sector, let us aim to be an exemplar in pay and conditions, and let us never give the private sector an excuse to justify driving down people’s wages.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I was a long way down the queue to speak, Mr Pritchard, and I was worried about getting in, so I thank you and other hon. Members for making that happen. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) for bringing this issue forward. I have expressed concern about it over a number of years as an elected representative.
It seems like a lifetime ago—it probably was—that I sat on Ards Borough Council. I was very unhappy with the outsourcing of staff to agencies. While we advocated certain pay conditions and holidays, to get around that in practice, agency staff were used. Clearly, the agency staff did not have the same conditions as others, and that concerned me greatly.
I agree with the use of agency staff for the short term for some staff members, but the agency had staff in place for over a year. As with all things, those in government, both local and central, must lead by example. I am pleased that Ards and North Down Borough Council, my local council, has taken the brave decision to cut down on agency staff for the long term. That must be applauded. That means that the staff there now have the pay and conditions that they should have had at the very beginning.
Bringing things in house should bring accountability, and it sends the better message that we treat staff equally on pay and conditions. Civil servants are some of the brightest people we have. To think that we are unable to train them in different skills and move them into different areas of need does them a disservice. I saw many examples during the lockdown of council staff stepping out of their office and into another role that needed filling. It was clear that the potential and the desire were equally matched, and they had the ability to do those things.
I realise that there were extenuating circumstances, and some people do not handle moving area well, but others clearly excel, so there is no reason to bring in private contractors when we have the ability and foresight to plan ahead and upskill our own staff, allowing the private sector to make use of the resources, while we train those who dedicate their life to public service. The social security office staff in Ann Street in Newtownards have got their heads round the brand-new benefits system, which is quite difficult for them to use. They were able to rely on outside consultants and contractors, but the staff that were there were retained, so the conditions remained in place.
Time does not permit me to continue, but I must be clear. There are some things that must be outsourced, but others cannot and should be kept in-house. I want to make a plea for those who are in-house. and I recognise those good employers who do the right thing.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, my position as chair of the PCS parliamentary group and my trade union membership of Unison, of which I have been a member of good standing for 25 years. It is pleasure to see a debate led by my Unison comrade—I believe it is her first in Westminster Hall—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker).
I was in Westminster Hall on Monday evening, when I heard the far-right of the Conservative party wax lyrical about immigration and slagging off other political parties, which were not there to defend themselves. Is it not interesting that no Conservative Back Bencher is here to defend the basic tenet of the Conservative party’s political philosophy of private sector involvement in public services? Those watching the debate will be able to draw their own conclusions as to why that is.
I will concentrate some of my remarks on the Home Office pilot being carried out for asylum case interviews, as touched on by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson). We understand that the company involved is Serco, although the Government have yet to confirm that—it seems to be a secret pilot scheme. We have to ask ourselves why that is the case. Is it because the director general of UK Visas and Immigration happens to be a former employee of Serco? Perhaps that is the reason why Serco has been drafted in to carry out these asylum case interviews.
It has not been touched on in the debate, but it is important when discussing asylum case interviews to say that the Government have argued in court, unfortunately successfully, that outsourced companies—private contractors—carrying out public sector services are exempt from human rights legislation. I have to say that I am fearful of the fact that a private sector company is carrying out asylum case interviews. I would have thought that we would want to make sure that someone’s human rights were respected in an asylum case interview—we would certainly expect their human rights to be protected.
That is one of the key reasons why I have consistently—before I arrived in this place and ever since—been against the outsourcing agenda that the Government have had for the last decade. My friend, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, and other speakers mentioned the rogues’ gallery involving Serco and its test and trace system. A quite astonishing figure has been provided; the Boston Consulting Group is getting eye-watering consultancy fees for this wonderful tests and trace system that the Government talk about. Some consultants are earning £7,000 per day from the public purse. I think we may be in the wrong job, Mr Pritchard, if that is what some people are getting.
We have heard about the impact of outsourcing on terms and conditions—the cuts to wages and working hours and the refusal of outsourcers to pay the living wage, for example. We have seen great examples of trade unions fighting back on that, including the PCS, Unison and Unite, which have been mentioned.
In the moments I have left, I will ask the Minister a question on public procurement policy notes and the request for contractor relief to continue—I understand it is due to expire on 31 October. The Minister has a letter in her possession from myself, as chair of the PCS parliamentary group, asking whether she could give an update on the public procurement policy notes and if she will be amenable to the request that all staff who have to isolate should be given full pay during that absence. We are of the view that there is an opportunity here to help local communities to manage and recover from covid.
Mr Pritchard, I thank you for being in the chair today. The outsourcing agenda is wrong. I believe that the people of these islands should be entitled to strong public services and strong public sector delivery in public sector hands.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) on securing this important debate and on her powerful speech, which set up the multiplicity of ways in which outsourcing is failing workers on pay, terms and conditions, job security, and health and safety.
The devastating impact of these failings was illustrated in many contributions, including those from my hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), and from the hon. Members for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) shared an example from his constituency of outsourced workers in relation to universal credit and being subject to exploitative practices. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) shared the example of staff at Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service who were outsourced, only to find themselves made redundant. There were many other examples, and I thank all hon. Members who contributed to the debate.
The coronavirus pandemic has shone a bright light on the Government’s broken model of outsourcing. It has exposed the grotesque inequality of terms and conditions of employees working side by side in the same Departments—civil servants able to self-isolate on full sick pay, while outsourced cleaners or security staff face an impossible choice between coming to work with symptoms or being unable to pay their bills. There is cruelty and stupidity in that approach, in equal measure. It is terrible for workers and extremely risky for infection control. It has exposed the Government’s dependence on a small number of private firms to deliver vital public services, often with no clear evidence of their ability to do so competently, creating multiple layers of risk, both for staff and for those who rely on the services those firms are contracted to deliver.
Outsourced workers have been an integral part of the frontline during the coronavirus pandemic. Thousands are in roles such as cleaning, security and facilities management. Those jobs cannot be done on Zoom. Those workers have continued to travel to work on public transport, spending their shifts in contact with other workers or surfaces that have been touched by many other hands. Often, they are disproportionately from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds: BAME workers make up 16% and 26% of cleaners and security guards, respectively, compared with 12% of the wider workforce. They are key workers, those same key workers the Government clapped on Thursday evenings earlier in the year. They have faced multiple risks to do their essential work, yet they have been left to fall through the cracks in the protections from which others who work in public service benefit.
The major driver for outsourcing is cost reduction. Studies have shown that all too often it leads to a deterioration in pay, terms and conditions for the workforce, including insecure contracts and a loss of access to benefits, such as pensions and sick pay. That approach is being applied across many different areas of public services. Unite, Unison, the GMB and the Public and Commercial Services Union all have harrowing examples—too many to set out in detail in the time available today—in which Tory austerity is paid for at the expense of the mental, physical and financial wellbeing of outsourced workers in Government Departments, local authorities and the NHS.
Yet the Government’s failing outsource model is simply not delivering. That failure is illustrated most starkly today in the Serco and Sitel track and trace contract, a shocking example of the Tory instinct to outsource overriding all the evidence that local authorities are best placed to deliver a service that involves the day-to-day investigation of contact between people in specific geographical communities. The Government spent more than £10 billion on a contract that has been subcontracted to 29 different unnamed companies, creating a completely unaccountable tangle, and it seems that they are committed to even more of the same.
In 2017, Carillion collapsed in an outsourcing scandal of national proportions. It became clear that Carillion had built a house of cards, with undeliverable contract stacked on undeliverable contract, and a huge web of smaller firms entirely dependent on it. Seven hundred and eighty firms went into liquidation as a consequence of the collapse of Carillion, and more than 3,000 people lost their jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) led the investigation into Carillion as Chair of the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and Labour is committed to implementing the lessons of that sorry tale—it is beyond comprehension that the Government are not.
Instead, it would appear that the Government are now content for the two largest Government contractors, Interserve and Mitie, to merge. The merger would create the UK’s largest facilities management company, with almost 80,000 employees, yet both companies have had financial problems in recent years, both have a poor history of industrial relations and, since they are competitors, the merger is a back-door route to obtain contracts that they were previously not considered good enough to be awarded.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister what assessment she has made of the impact of the proposed merger of Interserve and Mitie on employee terms and conditions, on redundancies, and on the quality of services that will be delivered. What assessment has she made of the social value that the merger will bring? What evidence has she seen to give confidence that this is not another Carillion waiting to happen? What discussions has she had with trade unions on the disparity in terms and conditions for outsourced workers in Government buildings and frontline public services during the coronavirus pandemic? Does she know, and will she name, the 29 companies delivering track and trace services for Serco? If not, why not? Finally, and most importantly, what is her message to outsourced key workers on Government contracts, supporting and delivering vital public services, who are fearful today about the safety of their workplace or their journey to work, and are worried that if they develop coronavirus symptoms and have to self-isolate, they will have to choose between the health and safety of their colleagues and the wider public, or their ability to put food on the table?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing the debate. The Government are the custodian of public money and it is very important that we retain the confidence of taxpayers about how that money is spent. It is similarly important that we have a robust, highly skilled civil service, with the expertise and capacity to deliver projects and services over the long term and at pace, and that we treat those in the private and public sectors who carry out work for the Government with respect. That is why I welcome not only the way in which the hon. Member has raised issues about external private contractors but the respectful way in which she makes her case.
The civil service has historically used contractors, working alongside civil servants, to provide additional capacity and specialist skills and to manage short-notice urgent requirements. Where it is cost-effective to do so and the requirement is temporary, this makes sense, but let me also be clear that we are focused on driving down the use of consultants, improving internal civil service capability and driving greater value. We will do this in a variety of ways: revamping our in-house training; looking again at procurement rules, particularly relating to social value; and continuing the work of my predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in dealing with issues about outsourcing raised following the collapse of Carillion.
Consultants are used to provide advice on the strategy, structure, management or operations of an organisation, and where an external perspective may be helpful or even necessary. We also use professional services firms to support the implementation and delivery of services—for example, PwC supported the delivery of the reform programme for Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service—and we use contingent labour to fill gaps in business-as-usual or service delivery activities. It is also right to say that the civil service itself has grown in number over recent years, partly because of the EU exit operations but also because of covid. We have recruited an extra 6,000 civil servants in the Home Office, for instance, to tackle security, counter-terrorism, crime and policing issues.
I will now address some of the points made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree. I met the leaders of the three civil service unions yesterday. I have not been in post for long, so it was simply an introductory meeting, but I know that some of those unions also represent workers within private sector contracting companies, and I will be very happy to look into some of the issues that she raised today about outsourced workers and their pay and conditions, particularly as regards sick pay.
Other Members have also raised issues about working conditions during the pandemic and it is important to say that not everybody can work over Zoom. In many ways, it is a privilege to be able to do so and not to have to go into an office. On the other hand, I am also aware many workers’ office jobs are not easily conducted at home, and it is important for the Government, as an employer, to provide safe work spaces, so that we can take into account those who are in shared or cramped accommodation.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree also talked about delivering social value through contracts, and we quite agree. We recently took a new look at social value, considering how we take into account environmental factors in how contracts are delivered, whether a contractor is improving the skills of their workforce or their approach to apprenticeships, and so on. We will look at social value in quite a comprehensive way, because once the EU transition period has ended, we will be in a position to come up with a new procurement strategy. Indeed, we are working very hard to draw that up. She raised a number of issues about how we extract value from existing Government contracts, and I will take those away to consider them.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) made a number of important points, but it is important that we recognise that we could not have responded to some of the challenges of the pandemic without expertise from both the public sector and the private sector. Again, I assure him that social value is at the heart of the new procurement strategy that we are drawing up, particularly on issues such as climate change and waste.
The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) raised a number of important issues about track and trace. We all want this system to work. Let us not pretend that it has been perfect from the outset, but a lot of things have been done to improve that service and we are now conducting hundreds of thousands of tests daily. We hope to be on track to deliver—I do not want to get the number wrong, but there is certainly a much increased capacity when it comes to testing and we have ironed out some of the problems that we saw around September with demand on the system.
It is also important that we understand that this process is a partnership between national and local, and between public and private, and I think that it is naive to suggest that the public sector alone could have built up this service so quickly and delivered it at such a great pace. We appreciate the expertise that we have received from the private sector.
Alex Sobel
Local authorities can furlough staff, so many local authority staff who could not do their normal jobs were still employed by the local authority. There was capacity in local authorities to deliver this programme. Should that capacity not have been taken up and used before going to the private sector?
Julia Lopez
It is important to understand that the private sector has provided the framework for the system, with local authorities able to plug into that framework. The private sector provides the national call centres and so on, but a lot of the local expertise is provided at local level from healthcare experts on the ground, particularly in some of those harder-to-reach instances where we need to go knocking on people’s doors. Ultimately, we share the hon. Gentleman’s aim to improve the service and build plenty of public confidence in it because it is such a key tool in dealing with the pandemic.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) is a PCS union member, and I met his leader yesterday. It is important to remember that successive Governments of all colours use outsourcers. In a previous life, I was a councillor in Tower Hamlets. There were a number of outsourced contracts there and not very impressive in-house management of them, I should say. Outsourcers can provide a lot of expertise and capacity and it is naive to suggest that the public sector alone has all that capacity and expertise in house. Let us not do down some of the people who work for those contractors and bring a lot of capacity and sense to the system.
Both the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) and the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) seem to take an ideological view that effectively says private bad, public good. That is a great shame because it fails to acknowledge what the private sector can provide for public good.
Claudia Webbe
Leicester has been in extended measures and lockdown for the longest time, as the Minister will appreciate. On the test and trace system alone, the private contractors delivering that have a success rate of less than 50%. Our own local authority, which understands the issues, was able to deliver a success rate of more than 85%. That is the difference between the private and the public sector. That is the reality. It is not ideological; it is the reality on the ground. That is what is happening and it is serious.
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. Does she believe that the local authority in Leicester would be capable of delivering a fully functioning test-and-trace system that would do all that such a system needs to do? I think that is not the case. The private sector has been able to achieve impressive things during the pandemic and provide a lot of public good at speed and in innovative ways. That has been critical in procurement of all manner of goods and services, from PPE to new diagnostics, which have been fundamental to how we have protected the public.
The hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) raised a number about the justice system, but I am afraid that, as a Cabinet Office Minister, I do not have the expertise on some of the issues she raises. I am happy to look into them for her and reply in writing. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) raised a number of issues on contractor pay. I am working on the very issue of value from contractors with my ministerial colleague, Lord Agnew. Some hon. Members may be aware that he has recently set out his concern about some of the reliance in Whitehall on management consultants and that we have infantilised civil servants and deprived some of our brightest public servants of
“opportunities to work on the most challenging, fulfilling and crunchy issues.”
Our reliance on consultants and other contractors can, at times, hinder the development of internal civil service capability. We have discussed that at length and are keen to improve what we do in terms of in-house learning capability and expertise.
I am always glad to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in this Chamber. He talked about civil service churn and skills, and I reassure him that we want to upskill our civil service. We are looking again at the quality of our training, as I mentioned, and he might be interested in the comprehensive Ditchley lecture given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), which talks about some of these issues.
There are many other issues to cover, but I am cognisant of the time. I reassure hon. Members that we need tighter controls around contractor expenditure, supported by better quality data and management information.
Julia Lopez
I do not think I have time to give way. Mr Pritchard, what time does the debate finish?
Julia Lopez
I want to leave time for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree to respond, so I will not give way.
There will always be situations where it makes sense to use contractors, working alongside our high-quality civil servants, to deliver specialist advice and services and to tackle short-notice urgent requirements where the civil service does not have sufficient capacity. We also need to reverse the trend we have seen over recent years, which has eroded civil service capability and led to an over-reliance on consultants and other contractors.
Hon. Members raised a number of other issues today about outsourcing and I am happy to take them away. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree again for her thoughtful contribution.
Paula Barker
I thank you, Mr Pritchard, for chairing this important debate today, and I thank all hon. Members who have spoken and the Minister for her considered approach.
The Minister said that the Government are the custodian of public money, and that it is important to retain public trust. I reiterate that public trust is at an all-time low, particularly in my constituency. I would be grateful if the Minister can take up the very important issues raised today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government use of external private contractors and effect on employment.
House of Lords
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally.
Oral Questions will now begin. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Network Rail’s Enhancements Pipeline
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the purpose of the review of rail schemes in Network Rail’s enhancements pipeline; whether that review includes consideration of (1) the viability, and (2) the business case, of each scheme; when the review will be completed; whether the outcome will be published; and whether the High Speed 2 project will be subject to any such review.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, our flexible pipeline approach to funding rail infrastructure enhancements means that we continually review our portfolio of projects, including the impact of Covid, to ensure that they are making the best use of taxpayers’ money. The High Speed 2 project was subject to a rigorous, independent review this year and was comprehensively reset with a revised budget and schedule.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. However, it is now six months since the coronavirus lockdown started. Surely the Government have done some work on demand for travel given the continuing trend for working at home and the likely long-term effect that this might have on rail travel, whether it is commuter services or HS2. Is it not time for the Government to produce some initial thoughts on this?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord is quite right that there may well be long-term effects on the way that we travel in the future. However, at the moment, we are at the stage where there are many different forecasts and scenarios. As we continue through the pandemic, no single scenario is coming out as the most likely. However, we will consider the future demand requirements for rail on all the enhancement projects in the pipeline.
Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
Will the Minister appoint me to run Network Rail? I will bring to bear exactly the same skill set: I will lie about the initial cost of projects by a factor of four, just to sucker the Government into approving them; I will deliver them five, 10 or 15 years late; I will let the costs rocket out of control and not care; and I will have a salary of half a million pounds please, which is a big cost saving. Am I suitably qualified?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am sure that my noble friend would like me to say that I will of course appoint him to lead Network Rail, but, unfortunately, he is going to be disappointed. He slightly underplays the huge developments in recent years as we established the RNEP. It was established only in 2018 and what it tried to do—and indeed does—is to put in one place, open for scrutiny, all the projects that we are considering, whether they are at the initiation, development, design or delivery stage. We provide updates every quarter; that is good transparency and provides for good scrutiny.
Lord Snape (Lab)
The Minister’s noble friend is quite right: Network Rail’s costs are outrageous. Is she aware that, back in 1988, British Rail built a new station at Tutbury on the Derbyshire-Staffordshire border for £80,000? As recently as 1998, Railtrack built four new stations on the Robin Hood line, as well as a new platform and two overbridges, for £5.3 million. Yet Network Rail is now quoting £14 million for a single platform and £22 million for a double-platform station. This is outrageous. Will the Minister tell Network Rail so, and will she tell me how she gets on if she does?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord is right to raise the increasing costs of transport infrastructure projects. Noble Lords may know that I have a particular interest in Hammersmith Bridge at the moment. It was built for £10 million in today’s money many, many years ago; you could not get it for that now. I take the noble Lord’s point that we absolutely have to drive down costs. That is part of what we are doing with Network Rail. It is really important that we challenge the costs and make sure that they are as low as possible. If the noble Lord has any evidence that he wants to share with my department and the rail Minister, I would be happy to pass it on.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, the industry and its suppliers want, most of all, a steady and consistent workload. Will the Minister stress to her department, and the Treasury, the need to plan ahead so that this might happen?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord is quite right, and that is one of the reasons why we have investment periods for both rail and roads. This makes sure that the supply chain knows what is coming down the track, so to speak, and is able to respond accordingly. It also gives it certainty that if a project goes through its stages then it will actually happen. One of the biggest challenges we have had previously has been a lack of certainty that projects will happen. The noble Lord will also know that the spending review has been reduced to one year. However, for some of the long-term plans—for example, CP6 for rail—it will be a multi-year settlement.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
The Government’s HS2 six-monthly report to Parliament referred to £800 million of “cost pressures”. I think that is a euphemism for extra costs which will have to be paid for out of the contingency provision, which at this rate will be used up fairly rapidly. Eight hundred million pounds over six months works out at additional costs of just under £4.5 million every day, or £3,000 every minute. We support HS2, but when do the Government intend to get a grip on its costs? Setting up a ministerial task force chaired by the Secretary of State does not sound like much of an answer to that question.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord is wrong to extrapolate quite as far as he did. We have a relentless focus on controlling costs. He is right that there are some cost pressures from the preparatory works, but we remain confident that HS2 phase 1 can be built within the target cost of £40.3 billion.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the improvements being made to King’s Cross Station, but does my noble friend accept that on any measure of cost-benefit analysis or impact assessment, HS3, now called Northern Powerhouse Rail, will deliver more in terms of economic benefits to the north of England and the levelling-up programme of this Government that I support? When will it be built?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The project to which my noble friend refers will be considered as part of the integrated rail plan. That will look at the delivery of high-speed rail alongside all other rail investments in the north and the Midlands.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
The Minister mentioned the assessment that happened for HS2, but in Jones Hill Wood there is a protected species of bat; the HS2 organisation does not have a licence and is threatening to cut down the trees anyway. I am sure that the Minister is extremely worried about this breaking of the law. Did all the law-breaking that HS2 is currently doing come into the assessment?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I was not aware of this particular species of bat that lives in this tree. If the noble Baroness could forward information to me, I will make sure that the HS2 Minister receives it.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
I refer the House to my railway interests declared in the register. Does the Minister agree that electrification has a central part to play in achieving the Government’s value-for-money and decarbonisation agendas, as does the HS2 project? When will the go-ahead be given to completing paused projects, such as the lines to Bristol and Oxford and the Midland main line? What progress is being made in identifying discrete electrification projects on relatively short stretches of main line over hills, where journey times can be saved going uphill and batteries regenerated going downhill?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
To answer the first part of the noble Lord’s question, any decision on new or expanded project scopes will be made after the spending review has concluded. On decarbonisation more generally, whether it is uphill or downhill, Network Rail is developing an overarching traction decarbonisation network strategy which will provide strategic advice about which technology—electrification, battery or hydrogen—would be best suited to each section of a decarbonised rail network. This would include individual decisions taking into consideration local conditions and topography, and they would be developed as needed.
Lord Greaves (LD) [V]
My Lords, I want to concentrate on one small scheme that after years of stop and start has reached stage 2, the development stage, of the pipeline: the reinstatement of 11 miles of track between the forlorn single platform and buffer stops at Colne and Skipton. Does this review mean that the Colne-Skipton project has gone back to stock and everything will again be thrown up in the air? When will we be told we can start again?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As the noble Lord has mentioned, that particular project is at stage 2, which is the “develop” stage; it needs to go to “design” and then to “deliver” to be built or reopened. The pipeline is always very ambitious, and it is the case that a project getting into the pipeline does not necessarily mean that it will be delivered—it will depend on the value-for-money and various other considerations over that period. I cannot comment specifically on the Colne-Skipton railway, but it will be reviewed alongside all the other projects. That does not mean that it is going backwards in any process.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Bat Conservation Trust and say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that if she wants more information about the barbastelle bat, I am happy to give it. Does she think, with the benefit of hindsight, that the first phase of HS2 would not have got the green light considering the huge increase in cost and environmental damage in any such review as we are now looking at? [Interruption.]
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am not sure if my noble friend’s dog was asking a question at the same time as him. The Government continually review the value-for-money case for HS2; indeed, it was reviewed fairly recently by Lord Oakervee. The Government are committed to delivering this project.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Prisons: Remand
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord German
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact on (1) prisons, (2) prisoners, and (3) those on remand, of increasing the maximum period of remand in custody by eight weeks.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Pre-trial detention is never considered lightly, my Lords. Numerous safeguards exist to ensure that custody is used appropriately. These safeguards will be maintained and those on remand will still be able to apply for bail even with this extension in place. HMPPS closely monitors prison population forecasts and is committed to always having enough prison places to accommodate those remanded in custody by our courts.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the Government tell me that they do not collect data on the number of people held in custody on remand. They now introduce regulations to extend remand to nearly eight months without knowing the numbers. Can the Minister explain how that squares with not knowing how many there are? A key group captured by the new extension is children. Given that about half of them will not get an immediate prison sentence, that 37% of all imprisoned children are on remand, that hardly any education is available to them and that they are in danger of falling into adult criminality, should not the Government make alternative arrangements for this vulnerable group?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the latest publicly available data on remand shows that on 30 June this year the remand population was 11,388. All children charged alone should be tried summarily unless the offence is sufficiently grave. Only the most serious youth cases are sent to a Crown Court and therefore involve remand. The department is undertaking a review of the use of custodial remand for children and will look into the drivers for custodial remand and the issues surrounding disproportionality.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, is the Minister aware that many hundreds of remand prisoners in London prisons are now held for much longer periods than before Covid while waiting for a trial date? Her Majesty’s Prison Pentonville alone has over 400 prisoners waiting for unprecedented periods—of over a year—for their cases to be heard. Can she assure your Lordships’ House that action is being taken to relieve this? If so, what action can we expect?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Covid-19 has presented an unprecedented challenge to the criminal justice system. The relevant SI is there exactly to aid the criminal courts during their continued recovery from the pandemic and to help to manage demand while the Crown Court continues to recover.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I follow on from the right reverend Prelate’s question. Will the Minister accept that, while aggravated by the Covid crisis, the failure to reduce the trial backlog long predates it? Right now, there are prisoners on remand in custody on serious charges of violence and drug dealing whose trials, which take priority over those on remand on bail, will not happen until late 2021, whereas the trials of those on bail, including on charges of rape, will not take place until late 2022. Rather than go on about the need for more severe sentences, why do we not concentrate on practical measures that get defendants before the courts now so that they can be tried and sentenced on the current law, thus ending the current injustice to both victims and accused?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
That is exactly what we are trying to do, and is part of our plan. Court recovery is ongoing. We have opened 200 rooms for jury trials since they were resumed in May, and by the end of October 250 rooms will be open. We have also opened 12 Nightingale courts, with a further four due to open any time now. So far as confidence in the system is concerned—having the right sentences and appeals and court procedures—the sentencing White Paper is looking into those issues.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
Many prisoners affected by the increased remand period will be the pawns or modern slaves of drug barons, involved in low-level drug dealing. Will the Minister propose to her colleagues that they adopt the excellent policy of Durham Constabulary and a growing number of other police services which divert such vulnerable individuals to treatment, thus reducing pressure on the courts, saving taxpayers’ money and rescuing lives?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness. A lot of what she says is included in the sentencing White Paper. We also have to remember that CTLs are managed very well in magistrates’ courts, which do not have the additional problem of accommodating juries under the current social distancing rules.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, inevitably, a period of remand is stressful. For some, it is highly stressful and can lead to self-harm. Part of the stress is caused by uncertainty. Many remand periods are already far too long, as other noble Lords have said, and extending remand further by eight weeks will make the uncertainty and mental stress even worse. What planning has been done to minimise self-harm by prisoners held for long periods on remand?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Baroness brings up an important point. I do not have all the details but I am very happy to write to her about what we are doing to alleviate that.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, the percentage of black youngsters in prison far exceeds their representation in the community. In fact, in some of our women’s prisons it may be as high as 25%. Have the Government undertaken an impact assessment or research to understand how we have created this anomaly?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The impact that the SI will have on the BAME groups—as the noble Lord said, they are disproportionately represented in the remand population—has been carefully considered. To this effect, an equalities impact statement has been undertaken to explore any potential disproportionate effects. This will ensure that the extension is a measured and necessary means of protecting the public and that justice continues to be served.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, the National Criminal Justice Arts Alliance represents 900 arts organisations that do magnificent work in our prisons and with offenders and ex-offenders. Does my noble friend agree that the pandemic is an opportunity for the Government to engage further with this arts alliance, considering that so many arts organisations are struggling to stay open, and that it could be engaged further to make an impact on some of the issues that noble Lords have already mentioned, such as education and mental health?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. I thank him for his work with the National Youth Theatre and Music Masters, which does a lot of work with disadvantaged young people. The alliance has 900 organisations as members, which undertake successful arts projects with both sentenced offenders and those on remand. Covid has curtailed some of its work but we hope that it will get back to working hard in our prisons very soon.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, all the questions that we have heard put to the Minister reflect the very serious situation that we are seeing in our courts. Both sentenced prisoners and those on remand are spending 23 hours a day in their cells, and noble Lords have drawn attention to an increase in self-harm in both the male and female estates. Does the Minister agree that there should be greater access to telephones and video contact arrangements for prisoners and their families? Of course such arrangements should be appropriately monitored so that no more abuse is perpetuated, but greater contact would help prisoners in their rehabilitation.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I agree. We have done a lot in the Prison Service since the beginning of this pandemic to exactly that end. There is already a greater use of iPads and telephones.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, extended time spent on remand is an inevitable consequence of the extended time in bringing cases to trial due to Covid, which I supported. However, it is a miserable existence, waiting in cells with nothing to do. It is damaging to prisoners’ mental health, especially that of young offenders and, even more especially, young women, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, pointed out. Again, I ask the Minister to say what extra steps are being taken to address their quality of life during these extended periods and to monitor and care for their mental health.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I think I have said before that these are very difficult times. We have to look after the health and well-being not only of the staff in our prisons but of the prisoners, whether sentenced or on remand, and we are doing everything we can to keep them safe. However, I absolutely agree that this extended time impacts on some of the extra work that we can do with them because of the need to keep them safe.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
EU: Visa-free Short-term Travel Mobility
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are seeking a reciprocal agreement on visa-free short-term travel mobility in their negotiations for the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, both sides have committed to providing visa-free arrangements for tourists and short-term business visitors. The EU will grant UK nationals visa-free access for short-term visits, subject to reciprocity. This means that UK business visitors and tourists would not need a visa when travelling to the Schengen area for short stays of up to 90 days in every 180-day period. We have announced that we will treat EU citizens as non-visa nationals for the purposes of tourism and holidays after the end of the transition period.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, this affects not only tourists but those working in the creative industries, including visual artists, writers and musicians who wish to spend informal extended periods abroad. Do the Government agree that it is deeply unfair that British citizens cannot spend a summer or winter in a European country visa-free—indeed, they cannot return for three months—while Europeans can stay in the UK for up to six months at a time? What plans do the Government have to seek a reciprocal agreement on this, considering that the phrase “at least 90 days” in the EU negotiating document is an open door to further negotiation?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Earl raises a very important point. The Government certainly recognise the importance of tourism and travel for the creative industries. We set out our position on mode 4 in the approach publication at the start of negotiations and we are committed to seeking protection for exactly the kind of persons the noble Earl refers to.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the posted workers’ directive particularly helped our travel business, and some 15,000 UK residents are employed in an EU member state. As the Government will not continue this agreement after December, which risks thousands of jobs, particularly those of young people, will they extend the reciprocal youth mobility scheme, which enables young workers to move between signatory countries to find work for up to two years, and might also help musicians?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, at the moment we are continuing discussions in this area. I promise to advise the noble Baroness opposite on the specific point that she raises very shortly.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Michel Barnier has labelled some of the United Kingdom’s proposals as “freedom of movement for service suppliers”. Can the Minister confirm that we are seeking only to lock in, on a reciprocal basis, some arrangements that the United Kingdom already offers to third-country nationals, and that therefore this characterisation is simply wrong?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to her place. She is exactly right; the comment underlines my point that we are seeking to negotiate arrangements which run very much in the direction that the House is asking for. For example, we are seeking measures on contractual services suppliers who provide services to a client in another jurisdiction. I cannot go through all our mode 4 suggestions, but they are on the table and we very much hope that they will be picked up.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My noble friend the Minister will know that, currently, eligible applicants can work in most jobs under the simplified youth mobility scheme but cannot work as young professional sports coaches unless qualified in the UK. Will he look again at this prohibition so as to encourage young, recently retired international sports men and women to come to this country as coaches to support our elite development pathways after the transition period?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, again, that is another specific and important point which is covered under this heading for discussion. I undertake to keep the House and my noble friend informed, in particular in relation to sport, as he has asked.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, according to the government website, UK citizens visiting EU countries from 1 January will have to have at least six months left on their passport, show a return or onward ticket, show they have enough money for their stay, use separate lanes from EU/EEA and Swiss nationals and limit their visit to 90 days in any 180 days. EU citizens travelling to the UK from 1 January do not need to worry about when their passport will expire, show a return or onward ticket, or prove they have enough money for their stay. They can continue to use the e-passport gates at UK airports, as before, and will be able to visit for six months and then come back the next day for another six. Who is really taking back control of our borders, the UK or the EU?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I simply say to the noble Lord, who represents a party that has been very critical of this Government’s attitude to European nationals, that the position he outlined demonstrates the openness of the future Britain.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con) [V]
My Lords, conferences and short-term visits as part of international collaboration are engine rooms of scientific discovery. They are vital for exchanging ideas, forming relationships and building careers. I realise that Covid is temporarily suspending some of this activity, but our immigration system must be fit for the future and there is consensus on the long-term benefit of researcher mobility for the UK’s science and innovation sector. So can the Minister please assure me that the Government will seek a light-touch, reciprocal arrangement, allowing researchers in innovations to travel for short, work-related visits, preferably visa free?
Lord True (Con)
Yet again, as other noble Lords in this short exchange have done, my noble friend raises an important point. In negotiations, we are seeking a reciprocal agreement that would bind both parties to agree a list of business activities that could be performed in either party without a work permit on a short-term basis, as she asks. Unfortunately, we are unable to comment on the detail of these arrangements, as discussions are ongoing.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, the music industry should not be viewed within a silo, nor as a bolt-on afterthought, but as an integral part of traditional business with a Pandora’s box of international engagement needing to be prised open. Given the multidisciplinary importance of performance skills to combine physical presence and future virtual technologies, might a partial approach lie in embracing an innovative online environment to ensure that sectoral infrastructure is developed for this new world in which we find ourselves?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Viscount raises an interesting suggestion. The Government recognise the importance of touring for UK musicians, and not only them. I have referred to some areas in which we are continuing efforts to negotiate a better solution, but I assure the noble Viscount and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, that musicians are very much in our mind.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am not clear why the Minister’s initial reply was about tourists, because this Question is about people who want to work. The ONS has found that arts, entertainment and recreation, including music, has lost over half its revenue and nearly three in five of its jobs due to Covid. So the hit from Brexit is kicking a sector when it is very down. How are the Government fighting to achieve a multi-entry Schengen visa for people such as musicians, and less bureaucracy for musicians’ instruments than they are set to face—whereas of course they have free movement under existing arrangements?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the original Question was about visa-free and short-term travel; tourism is certainly germane to the Question and I am sorry if that was unsatisfactory to the noble Baroness. I have referred to our efforts on short-term visits in relation to business activities. Our offer on mode 4 is extremely generous and we continue to impress on EU negotiators that the agreement we are proposing is very much in their workers’ interests as well as our own.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, what efforts are Her Majesty’s Government making to ensure that the visa-free short-term travel arrangements will not be used by traffickers to get their victims into the UK, because it looks as though there will be no effective checks at the borders?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that the UK authorities will remain eternally vigilant against this bestial criminal activity.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests. Does the Minister accept that performing musicians need the facility to travel at short notice to work in other parts of our continent? We are repeatedly told that the soft power of cultural exchanges is the UK’s strongest lever in today’s international world. Why are the Government willing to contemplate a no-deal Brexit which will strangle that influence within the European setting?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have referred more than once to the Government’s efforts to assist short-term activity in the course of the discussions we are having on mode 4. Obviously, movement and activity within different member states is an issue for them and for the EU. I repeat to the House that this is an important area. I believe that we have made generous, important and significant proposals and, as I say, discussions are ongoing.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
National Curriculum
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Woolley of Woodford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that the national curriculum reflects the diverse history of the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, as part of a broad and balanced curriculum, pupils should be taught about how different groups have contributed to the development of Britain. The flexibility within the history curriculum means that there is the opportunity to teach about the United Kingdom’s diverse history across the themes and areas in the curriculum. Events such as Black History Month can support teaching all year round and help schools celebrate the contribution black Britons have made to society.
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB) [V]
Does the Minister agree that we can have a truly inclusive 21st-century British patriotism built into our national curriculum, one that is honest about our history: the good—of which there is a lot—the bad and the very ugly? To prepare our children for the global stage and to ensure that they are comfortable with themselves, all students, including those from black, Asian, Roma, Traveller and white working-class communities need to read books with their experiences from our teeming diversity. More than half a million pupils will sit AQA GCSE English literature exams. Sadly, there are no African or Caribbean writers on the syllabus. In Black History Month, will the Minister commit to convening a series of meetings so that we can have an honest dialogue that will review and fantastically reform our national curriculum?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that of course the history and English curricula should reflect the diversity of the population, with teachers being given flexibility in relation to how they teach the curriculum. Obviously, they should take into account the needs of all their pupils. In relation to AQA, for instance, the history curriculum currently includes an option on migration, empires and the people, so there is flexibility for teachers to include texts and periods in modules of history at their discretion.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, was offering something far more radical than the reply we have just received. However, this whole question is like peeling an onion. What plans do the Government have to ensure that those who deliver the national curriculum accurately reflect the diverse population of the land? Secondly, what plans do the Government have to ensure that the training of teachers—taking the noble Lord’s suggestions into the discussion, perhaps—equips them to deliver a properly balanced national curriculum of the kind described by the noble Lord?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the requirement is for all schools to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum, and that is what Ofsted inspects against. In order to qualify as a teacher, the person must have satisfied the teaching standard, and the minimum requirement is, obviously, that they understand the needs of the children who they are teaching. However, the noble Lord is correct that the teaching population should reflect the population, and we are pleased that BAME staff increased from 7% to 10% within the teaching staff between 2010 and 2019, but we recognise there is further to go, as, currently, 26% of our students are from black and minority ethnic backgrounds.
Lord Storey (LD) [V]
For black lives to matter, they need to be reflected in our school curriculum. In the whole of our school history curriculum, there is only one mention of a black person, and that is Mary Seacole in a key stage 2, non-statutory section, where either Mary Seacole and/or Florence Nightingale can be chosen. Can the Minister give an assurance that she will look again at our school syllabus so that it can truly reflect our multicultural country?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the suggestions made in the national curriculum are the minimum for schools, and, obviously, we expect them to go beyond that. In relation to key stage 2, it is also suggested that pupils study the experience of Rosa Parks, and, at key stage 3, it is suggested that they learn about the empire. However, of course, there is the flexibility for teachers in the classroom to include all kinds of different people within their teaching.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, I sympathise very much with what has been said so far, but I have a very specific issue that I wish to raise in the world context. I point to the failure of the national curriculum to include anything about the United Kingdom’s historic links to, and support for, the independence movements throughout South America some 200 years ago. For example and among other things, few people are aware that a British regiment followed Simón Bolívar across the Andes, and I think the name of George Canning, the then Foreign Secretary, is better known in Argentina and, indeed, the wider region, than it is over here. At the time, this led to a lot of British influence and trade and left a legacy of good will.
This becomes important today in the context of links with educational institutions in Latin America and providing a better background for new trade and investment opportunities there. Furthermore, there are now millions of people of Latin American origin living and working in this country, some working here in your Lordships’ House, whose children could benefit from at least an option for Latin American studies, apart from more teaching of the Spanish and Portuguese languages. Can my noble friend give me some hope?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her tenacity in raising the profile of Latin America within your Lordships’ House. The flexibility that I have outlined for teachers means that they can include matters surrounding our involvement with Latin America, but, in particular, the suggestion is made at key stage 2 that, when looking at a non-European civilisation, the 10th-century Maya empire should be looked at, so it is included to some extent in the suggestions for the curriculum.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, if we really want to honour the diverse make-up of our nation, surely we should acknowledge the creative contribution to music, witness pop musicians, rap artists, the Chineke! Orchestra and the Kanneh-Mason family? Most of them could not afford private music lessons and attribute their success to music lessons in schools. Yes, the hubs have done fine work, but they are not a substitute for the ethos of everyday music in schools. Please will the Government consider putting music back on the national curriculum?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, music is indeed on the national curriculum and is compulsory in maintained schools for children between the ages of five and 14, and they should be offered one subject at GCSE beyond that. However, £500 million has been invested in hubs and other schemes to ensure that young people, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds, have access to music.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, is the Minister as shocked as I was that research from Teach First shows that a child can still get through their entire GCSEs without studying a single book by a black author? What is she going to do to change that? Will she consider encouraging a scheme whereby schools get pupils more engaged in selecting books by black authors and topics that reflect black British history?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, as I have outlined, it is open to teachers, whether they are teaching the national curriculum in maintained schools or in academies, to include literature from a variety of authors. There are suggestions in the national curriculum that they choose authors from black and minority ethnic backgrounds.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, Black History Month was established 33 years ago, and this year there has been a real desire to find out more about our diverse British history. The year 2020 seems like the beginning of the age of enlightenment, when the shackles were broken and eyes were opened. So how do the Government plan to further that interest? Will they consider broadening exam specification choices to include a wider range of topics that cover our untold history and for exam boards to facilitate this through high-quality resources?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, yes, as I have outlined, teachers are encouraged to use their flexibility to meet the needs of all the pupils in their classroom and to choose from a diverse range of sources to educate those children in accordance with the context they are living in and the history of this country.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
Does the Minister agree that it is essential to understand the genocidal and ecocidal impacts of the British Empire, from the late-Victorian famines, and many others, on the subcontinent, to the destruction of the Australian natural environment and aboriginal societies, recently set out in books such as Dark Emu, if you are to have an understanding of modern economics, ecosystems, societies, international relations—in fact, almost any subject?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the value of history in helping us to understand today and to learn from the past is one of the purposes of educating children. The only compulsory element on the national curriculum is the study of the Holocaust but, of course, that leads to teachers being able to talk about wider discrimination and prejudice to avoid such events happening again.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support a curriculum that reflects our diverse history and teaches children our national story, warts and all. But does my noble friend agree that it is profoundly unhistorical to teach and interpret the past entirely through the prism of today’s values, and it is wrong to demonise figures from history simply because they held views which, at the time, were the norm in society?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, history, of course, is not just events—history can be that of values, principles and mores. I agree with the noble Lord, who I am sure will be reassured that the guidance sent out by DCMS on the controversial issue of statues is to consider those figures in their context and contextualise the involvement of that person in our history.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
EU Exit: Negotiations and the Joint Committee
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank the Minister for returning to the Dispatch Box—apparently unbruised by the government defeat of 226—to defend the Statement and Mr Gove’s words in the other place: that, in any negotiation, both sides have to honour their commitments. Had the Prime Minister done so in respect of the withdrawal agreement, he may not have had to face that defeat.
Yesterday’s headlines were, “Talks break down”. As my right honourable friend Keir Starmer said:
“The collapse of these talks is a sign of Government failure.”
He was in fact responding to the Manchester talks, but it is the story of this Government, who could not negotiate their way out of a paper bag. They boast, threaten and bluster, but fail to reach a consensus with their counterparts. They set deadlines: a deal by July, then September, then mid-October—all missed. They criticise the EU for sticking to its negotiating mandate, but meanwhile boast that they will not move from their own negotiating objectives. It seems it is only the other side, and not ours, that has to move. They criticise the other side for not discussing legal texts, despite the fact that the EU published its 441-page legal text in March but it took until mid-May for us to do the same. Even then, the UK blocked early talks on security co-operation—security: the most important issue on which citizens rely on their Government.
The former Home Secretary and Prime Minister hit the nail on the head on Monday, pointing out that security was not even in the Statement and that, without a deal, law enforcement agencies would have no access to vital databases. I cannot re-enact her mocking response to the extraordinary answer that Mr Gove gave, but I will repeat his words and leave it to your Lordships’ imagination. He claimed that
“we can co-operate more effectively to safeguard our borders outside the European Union than we ever could inside.”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/20; col. 761.]
That hardly tallies with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who knows a thing or two about security:
“Without the ability to exchange data and intelligence across frontiers, law enforcement will be increasingly unable to cope … Everything from extradition to notification of alerts, crime scene matches and criminal record searches will be much slower, at best.”
Closer to home, Naomi Long, the Northern Ireland Security Minister, stressed the importance of a security partnership with the EU to stop the politicisation of extradition in Northern Ireland, as was the case before the EU arrest warrant.
Mr Gove’s view that we could not possibly, as the price for using EU security systems, also accept its court on the issue of how we use that data seems remarkable for its short-sightedness. Perhaps the Minister can update the House on progress towards a security and data-sharing agreement.
The Government have taken to saying that we had been offered a Canada-style agreement but it is no longer available. In fact, that was never going to happen. The Commission’s February slide on “Geography and trade intensity” never suggested that a carbon copy of CETA was on offer, simply that the same legal form as the FTAs with Canada and South Korea could be used. What is more, the Canada deal contains level playing field measures of the sort the Government now say they will never accept. If they are now willing to go the Canada way, will they also honour the political declaration that the Prime Minister signed and accept a level playing field?
This trade and security deal is too serious for playing games. Last week, 70 business groups, with more than 7 million employees, urged the Government to return to the table to strike a deal. These industries—automotive, aviation, chemicals, farming, pharmaceuticals, tech and financial services—are desperate for their futures and urge a compromise, as this matters greatly for jobs and livelihoods. As they say:
“With compromise and tenacity, a deal can be done.”
Sadly, yesterday’s perfunctory call with Boris Johnson left them disappointed. Some described it as unbelievably disrespectful to the concerns of business. The Prime Minister apparently asked companies to “end the apathy” and get ready, while Mr Gove described our departure as like moving house—a bit of disruption. Of course, it will not be Mr Gove or other Government Ministers who have to cope with a bit of disruption. There will be people losing jobs, consumers paying more for their food, Kent and Anglesey residents finding their roads blocked by lorries and their verges taken up by portaloos, and citizens’ rights at risk. Small business groups have pressed for transition vouchers to pay for extra preparation. I gather that Mr Gove said he would take that back to the Treasury, so perhaps we could know the outcome of that request.
At least they got a meeting. The SMMT did not even get its letter answered. On Monday, there had been no response to its 1 October letter, so perhaps we could be told whether it has now been answered. Meanwhile, the country’s leading transporter of diesel and petrol faces a 4% tariff on the fuel it imports if we do not get a deal. This will affect the industry itself, but it could also mean increased prices at the pumps, possibly up to 3p a litre. The knock-on effects on industry are evident.
Mr Gove was asked by my honourable friend in the other place how much of the £50 million for customs intermediaries had now been drawn down and how many customs agents had been trained. Unfortunately, she got no reply. So, we ask again: how many of the 50,000 will be in place on 1 January?
Finally, what is the status of the Goods Vehicle Movement Service, given that work on its IT system had not even started a few short months ago? The Government stress that businesses need to prepare, but seem unable to demonstrate that they have done their own work. Perhaps we can have an update on that as well.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster claimed that the UK was “increasingly well prepared” for what he called
“leaving the EU on Australian terms”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/20; col. 756.]
Putting aside the fact that “Australian terms” is just a euphemism for no deal, whereby the UK trades on WTO terms and our exports face tariffs and quotas, the cries of pain from business are audible for all to hear. They are far from having the “high hearts and complete confidence” at the prospect of no deal that the Prime Minister expressed—or indeed at the prospect of the skinny deal that represents the height of government ambition.
The Government have launched a “Time is running out” campaign urging businesses to get ready. But get ready for what? The Government must acknowledge that they are the ones keeping businesses in the dark.
The Road Haulage Association described a meeting with Michael Gove about post-Brexit arrangements last month as “a washout” in which they got “no clarity” on how border checks will operate when the transition period ends. In an interview on Monday, its managing director of policy and public affairs, Rod McKenzie, responding to Mr Gove’s claims, in a Statement, of
“putting in place new IT systems to help goods flow across borders”
and
“giving business access to customs professionals,”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/20; col. 757.]
said:
“It’s a bit of a cheek to say that ... It would be fine to accuse people of having their head in the sand and not having done anything if we knew what we had to do. The problem is the Government has spent not just months, but years, failing to tell the businesses that need to make this work what exactly they have to do…they haven’t prepared the IT systems that will make this work … and they haven’t hired enough customs agents to plough through the mountain of red tape that will be created by this new system.’
Then there is business as a whole. The BBC’s business editor, Simon Jack, tweeted yesterday about how business leaders had described a call with the Prime Minister and Mr Gove as “terrible,”
“unbelievably disrespectful to the concerns of business”
and “more of a lecture”, with the Prime Minister accusing them of “too much apathy”.
There is still no clarity as to what the trading relationship will be. The Government need to acknowledge that business does not have the certainty that it needs. Will the Minster retract the absurd claims that businesses have their head in the sand or are displaying apathy in preparing for Brexit? Will he accept that the Government’s current plan is very far from being “oven ready”, as claimed?
Attentive listeners will detect a bit of a pattern here. It is not just the EU that is getting accused by this Government or their acolytes of being in the wrong. It is business, experts, devolved Governments, mayors, judges, lawyers, the Church, the Civil Service and Parliament—especially, of course, the House of Lords. Gibraltar, Jersey and the Falklands are not exactly brimming with happiness and contentment, either. Perhaps, the Government should examine the mote in their own eye, rather than try to bully, bamboozle and blame everyone else. Their negotiating style has the effect of alienating almost every group they encounter, except, perhaps, rich Tory donors, including Russian ones.
On security, Mr Gove made the truly astonishing claim to the other place on Monday in response to former Prime Minister Theresa May that security would be better outside the EU. Mrs May was seen to mouth “What?” in response to that astonishing and hopelessly untrue claim. The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, tweeted yesterday:
“If UK loses all access to EU systems from 1 Jan, as looks likely, there is no good Plan B.”
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, said:
“Without the ability to exchange data and intelligence across frontiers, law enforcement will be increasingly unable to cope. Everything from extradition to notification of alerts, crime scene matches and criminal record searches will be much slower, at best.”
I remind the Minister that these people are experts. Mrs May was the Home Secretary for several years who masterminded the process in 2014 whereby the UK opted to stay in all the important EU law enforcement measures. The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, is a former National Security Adviser; and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.
If the Minister wants to tell me now what precisely is the
“variety of methods and arrangements”
whereby the UK
“can co-operate more effectively to safeguard our borders outside the European Union than we ever could inside,”
and which
“can intensify the security that we give to the British people,”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/20; col. 761.]
then I am all agog to hear what those measures are. Otherwise, I shall continue to think it is the fantasy it appears to be. The Government need to get real, stop blaming everyone but themselves, stop talking pie in the sky and get on with the negotiations like an adult, not a tiresome toddler.
How does Mr Gove’s claim, in the Statement, of
“the UK’s commitment to upholding all our obligations under both the withdrawal agreement and the Belfast agreement”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/20; col. 757.]
sit with the Government’s efforts to get the power to abjure them in the Internal Market Bill, with which this House expressed its severe displeasure yesterday?
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
Well, My Lords, after listening to the submissions from the noble Baronesses opposite, I must say I warm to the smooth, diplomatic talk of Monsieur Barnier.
I have always respected the Liberal Democrat Party’s consistency and determination to keep, then get back, the UK in the European Union of which they are so fond. But I listened—I strained my ears—to hear some acceptance in the submission from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that the British people had set an objective. She asked what the objective is; it is that set by the British people that the United Kingdom shall be an independent nation, free to set its own laws and proceed with mutual respect alongside our European partners. Not one word in the speeches from the parties opposite recognised that. Instead, I heard a litany of criticism of the stance this Government are taking on behalf of the British people. It was not Project Fear—it was, frankly, project invention. I was immensely disappointed by the tone. I think everybody outside this House should take note of the position of the Labour Party: it supports, in no respect, the efforts of the United Kingdom to secure a good deal, and in every respect, parrots the criticisms that come from the European Union.
This Government are intent on securing a good outcome for the United Kingdom. That outcome is the one I have described. I regret the delays and difficulties that have taken place, which were ascribed by the parties opposite entirely to the United Kingdom. In fact, the European Union was willing to undertake negotiations on fewer than half of the days available, it would not engage on all the outstanding issues and, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, it has refused to discuss legal text in any area since the summer. It is almost incredible to me that we have reached this point in negotiations without any legal text of any kind. Then, on 15 October, the EU heads of state gathered for the European Council and made the statement they did, and the response from the Prime Minister to that statement was entirely reasonable and predictable in the circumstances.
As my noble friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and others have made clear, this Government are always ready listen to serious approaches, but they have to be serious. This Government will continue to make preparations, as they have done for months, for whichever eventuality arises, whether it is the Australian outcome or, as we would have preferred, the Canada outcome. That work is ongoing. There is engagement with business, as was referred to in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke to representatives of business yesterday. Across the board, there are ongoing discussions.
I was asked about the goods vehicle IT; we have discussed that in this House before. We are confident that it is proceeding well. The arrangements for border management have been published and updated.
On security, in the last round, there was discussion of law enforcement, which covered a number of capabilities, including Prüm and mutual legal assistance. Security is of course important, but the whole gamut of relations between us and the European Union is important, and people on both sides have to reflect on how they want to see things go forward. The United Kingdom will adjust to any eventuality.
We note, with interest, that the EU’s negotiator, speaking to the European Parliament this morning, has commented in a significant way on the issues behind the current difficulties in our talks. We are carefully studying what was said, and I can tell the House that my noble friend Lord Frost will discuss the situation when he speaks to Monsieur Barnier later today.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief, so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
The Earl of Kinnoull (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there is a stark difference between the level of information contained in the statements made by the two sides following the joint committee meeting on Monday. Why is it that this sovereign Parliament gets so much less information than the EU 27 Parliaments and the European Parliament? Will the Minister commit that, going forward, a much greater level of information will be given on meetings of the joint committee and its sub-committees?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, a Written Ministerial Statement was issued. I am sorry if the noble Earl feels that more could and should be said. I always enjoy my engagements with him. The Statement referred to a number of matters discussed in the joint committee on 19 October. In addition to that, if he wants, I can be more helpful: the committee discussed work on the establishment of a list of individuals to sit on an arbitration panel, as required under the WA. Both parties are progressing work to establish a list of suitable arbitrators. As the noble Earl knows, it was agreed to have a further meeting of the committee in November, and other work will continue in the interim. The discussions are obviously ongoing, and I know that he understands, and I respect that, that there are some constraints on what one can share at a time of active talks.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, following last week’s EU Council meeting, Angela Merkel said:
“We also acknowledge that the UK would like to have a certain amount of independence”.
I emphasise “a certain amount”. Does the Minister agree that until the EU fully understands and respects the fact that we will have 100% independence, the EU alone will be responsible for the lack of a free trade deal, along with the damage that will do to the economies of many of its member states?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, of course it is essential that that point is recognised. I have made a practice, since I had the honour of taking on this brief, of not criticising the actions of any EU member state or anybody within the EU, and I shall forbear to comment on what any individual European leader may or may not have said. However, my noble friend is absolutely right that our independence, our right to set our laws, to control our own waters, and all the well-known expectations—not requests or demands—of an independent state need to be recognised by the other party.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Statement very clearly says that this country should get ready for 1 January 2021 on arrangements that are more like Australia’s—in other words, WTO rules. Does the Minister agree with the 71 trade associations and professional bodies—along with the CBI, of which I am president—representing 190,000 businesses and 7 million employees, calling on politicians on both sides to carve a path towards a deal, followed by the European business groups from France, Germany and Italy also calling for smooth trading conditions and a solution? Does he agree that now is the time for compromise and tenacity and that a deal can be done? If there is a deal, there will be a platform on which to build, for security, movement of people and all other parts of our relationship.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
Questions and answers should be as brief as possible, please, so that we can get through more people.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the House if I have infringed. I say then to the noble Lord that, whatever the outcome of the negotiations, the UK is leaving the single market and the customs territory, and everybody will have to make arrangements to act in those circumstances.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, what a mess we are in. Do the Government accept that they won a large parliamentary majority last December on the basis of an “oven-ready deal” that had two elements? A withdrawal agreement that ditched the Northern Ireland backstop and substituted a customs border in the Irish Sea was the proposal of the British Prime Minister, not the European Union. The second element was a political declaration that set out the terms of the future EU relationship, including clear commitments to a level playing field on state aid, workers’ rights and environmental standards. These inevitably represent constraints on independence. Is it not the case that if we end up with no deal, it is because the Government have gone back on those commitments made in December and put a price on sovereignty that will result in grave economic damage and increased political insecurity for the British people?
Lord True (Con)
No, my Lords, I do not accept the one-sided strictures being heard once again in this House. The Government have proposed arrangements with the European Union that have precedents in agreements that that Union has reached with other countries of the world. The Government have asked for nothing unreasonable.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Government are set on a Canada-style agreement. Have they studied the Canadian network of agreements with the United States, its close neighbour, which cover border controls, aviation, energy, police co-operation, common standards, road haulage and even fishing in the waters along their border? That is because it is a close neighbour. Do the Government have a strategy for somehow increasing the distance between the UK and the European continent? Or do they accept that after 1 January, we will have to start to negotiate on all these other matters as well with our new neighbours?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom is a sovereign nation and has relations with every other country in the world. Of course, our relationship with our European neighbours is important and we will continue to negotiate with them, whether in this process or in whatever circumstances we find in the future.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Can my noble friend confirm that EU negotiators have been gently reminded that, if there is no free trade agreement and, regrettably, tariffs are applied to trade in both directions across the channel, the cost to EU exporters will be getting on for three times the cost to UK exporters, because they largely export highly protected goods to us, which we will be able to obtain far more cheaply elsewhere once we are outside the customs union?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, we were told by the Front Bench opposite yesterday that the House was sending a signal to the European Union, so I infer that our proceedings are followed closely in Brussels, and I am sure my noble friend’s remarks will have been noted.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
[Inaudible.] So can the Minister offer a synopsis of the digital trade outcomes we should expect from negotiations, and confirmation that these are aligned with those in the Japan deal and US negotiations? Can concerns be allayed that many of the just-announced list of trade advisers to the Secretary of State and the DIT are recognised arch-Brexiteers, given the importance of bridge-building to allow continuity in trade with the EU, which is what is urgently required now.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I regret that I am not advised on the advisers to DIT; I apologise to the House for that, I was not anticipating that question. I cannot comment on whether they are so-called arch-Brexiteers, but I will respond to the noble Viscount’s question in writing.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend update the House on what progress has been made in determining who will negotiate with the EU for Northern Ireland, and in what forum, in those circumstances in which the EU proposes changes to the rules of the single market and Northern Ireland is obliged to diverge from the rest of the United Kingdom?
Lord True (Con)
My noble friend asks an important question. Article 15 of the Northern Ireland protocol establishes a joint consultative working group on implementation of the protocol to serve as a forum for the exchange of information and mutual consultation, including the EU informing the UK about planned Union Acts covered by the protocol. The United Kingdom has committed, and I repeat this commitment to my noble friend, to including representatives of the Northern Ireland Executive as part of the UK delegation to that working group.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, we in this House are trying to help the Government meet their promises to the electorate. In fact, we are doing a “reverse Salisbury”—I thank George Peretz QC for that phrase. I do not understand how a single Tory on the Government Benches can possibly vote against the election manifesto of last year. Can the Minister give details on the issues of environment, animal welfare and workers’ rights? Are we in agreement or disagreement with the EU on them? What are our Government asking for? What is the EU asking for? What blockages are coming from disagreements in the Cabinet?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I regret that I found it very difficult to follow the noble Baroness’s question because of the quality of the microphone. I think that at some point she asked about details of the state of play in certain aspects of negotiations, on which I would have to reserve the Government’s position in the normal way. I will examine Hansard, and if there is a way in which I can say anything, I will. I repeat that the Government have been involved in a delicate negotiation; as I told the House, there has been an interesting statement this morning, which we are examining. I reserve the Government’s position.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I turn to fishing rights and the rather fraught negotiations surrounding them, where we see President Macron and the French apparently refusing to compromise or give way in any shape or form. Does my noble friend regret, as I do, that some in the media, such as the BBC, and, I regret to say, many politicians who have never reconciled themselves to the vote taken in 2016, are always prepared to side with Monsieur Barnier and the French negotiators on issues such as fishing and are not willing to stand up in any way for British interests as expressed by our negotiators?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I said to the House earlier that I rather heard that in the opening statements from the side opposite. Our position on fishing has been very clear: the waters are the waters of an independent state. We have put propositions on fishing, but the EU has not been prepared to negotiate. Its ask from the start was that life should continue as it was. We are an independent coastal state and whoever it may be—I do not name the BBC—has to recognise that.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, yesterday’s statement from the Government clearly indicated that it is the intention of the UK and the EU to intensify discussions around the implementation of the withdrawal agreement, particularly around citizens’ rights and the Northern Ireland protocol. How will that happen when it is the Government’s intention to subvert the Northern Ireland protocol through Part 5 of the internal market Bill?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, that is a false characterisation of Part 5 of the internal market Bill. The Government are not subverting the Northern Ireland protocol; we are acting to implement it. The Government’s proposal, which your Lordships will have to discuss—I do not want to repeat the discussions we had yesterday—is that in certain circumstances we might have to protect our union against interference with free movement in the customs territory. On the joint committee proposals, the statement referred to the meeting that took place recently and the fact that another meeting will take place in November. The record of this Government on citizens’ rights for EU nationals has been outstanding and generous; we and, I understand, the Commission are pressing all member states to reciprocate. I hope very much that that will be the case.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, as I mentioned at Second Reading of the internal market Bill, people across this country know that we voted to leave and tried to negotiate a mutual and sensible exit in good faith. It seems that the good faith has not been reciprocated. In that regard, does my noble friend share my profound disappointment with the flavour of the EU’s communiqué after last week’s European Council?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I stand by the words of the Prime Minister in reaction to that. It was disappointing. I referred to it in my speech yesterday. It seemed to restate the opening position. As we understand it, the communiqué was hardened from the text that was before the Council, which was disappointing. We have expressed our disappointment and set out our position and feelings on the matter. I repeat to the House, because I do not want to make an entirely negative point, that we will carefully study everything that is said by EU representatives. As I have said, there will be further conversations.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I turn to customs and tariffs. The definition of goods at risk of onward movement into the EU is a sensitive decision for the joint committee to take. When does my noble friend think it will take that decision? As regards the UK’s listing as an authorised third country for agri-food exports into the EU, what assurances is the EU asking for to proceed with third-country listing of the UK and what assurances have we offered?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, we are more hopeful. The position on third-country listing was extraordinarily disappointing. The statements and threats made in that respect were unacceptable. Goods at risk is an area of discussion in the appropriate committee. I will not foresee the outcome of those discussions.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and noble Lords on all supplementary questions having been asked and answered.
Pension Protection Fund (Moratorium and Arrangements and Reconstructions for Companies in Financial Difficulty) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That the Regulations laid before the House on 15 September be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce the Pension Protection Fund (Moratorium and Arrangements and Reconstructions for Companies in Financial Difficulty) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2020 that were laid before the House on 15 September. I am satisfied that the provisions in the regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore ask the House to consider these regulations.
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 introduces some important measures, such as a moratorium on creditor action and restructuring tools to give specified corporate entities in financial difficulty the best chance of survival. This is part of a suite of measures to help business weather periods of economic uncertainty. The regulations debated on 14 September ensured that when certain corporate entities obtain a moratorium on creditor action, and the pension scheme trustees or managers are a creditor, the board of the Pension Protection Fund can exercise those creditors’ rights in relation to the moratorium as set out in the regulations, in specified circumstances. The regulations also ensure that when a restructuring is proposed under new measures, in respect of certain corporate entities, and the trustees or managers are a creditor to whom the restructuring is proposed, the board of the Pension Protection Fund can exercise the trustees’ creditors’ rights under the new restructuring measures, that way ensuring that pension schemes are not left without the appropriate protections in the legislation.
The regulations being debated today simply extend the Pension Protection Fund’s creditors’ rights to certain other corporate entities: relevant co-operative and community benefit schemes in the case of the moratorium, and relevant societies in the case of the restructuring provisions. The regulations also revoke a previous set of regulations because of a legal defect caused by an omission in a related statutory instrument. We have expedited the making and laying of these regulations in order to rectify the situation. The “made affirmative” procedure has enabled these regulations to come into force soon after they were laid.
These regulations form part of the corporate insolvency and governance legislative regime. If a relevant co-operative and community benefit society obtains a moratorium from its creditors, or a restructuring is proposed in respect of a relevant society as applicable, the Pension Protection Fund is able to intervene as a creditor to protect its interest in the relevant specified circumstances.
Moratoriums give companies and other relevant corporate entities respite from action that could otherwise cause them to close. During a moratorium, businesses will be more able to plan a beneficial restructure; this will reduce unnecessary business failures, thereby preserving jobs and value in the economy. Restructuring plans enable companies with viable businesses but significant debts to restructure with limited disruption. This will facilitate corporate rescue and reduce formal, value-destructive insolvencies, thereby preserving businesses and saving jobs.
Given the importance of the Pension Protection Fund as the statutory compensation scheme, it is crucial for the Pension Protection Fund to have access to and influence over certain decisions relating to moratoriums and recovery plans in the relevant circumstances. Should a rescue attempt fail, it is the Pension Protection Fund that steps in to pay compensation to eligible pension scheme members. Protecting the fund’s interest should help maintain confidence that the Pension Protection Fund will be able to continue to make compensation payments for as long as they are needed.
I would like to put on record something about the previous PPF regulations that we debated on 14 September: they have no impact, or no effect, on the regulations we are debating today. I am aware that there has been some concern about the legal status of the Pension Protection Fund (Moratorium and Arrangements and Reconstructions for Companies in Financial Difficulty) Regulations 2020, which were debated on 14 September, in so far as they relate to charitable incorporated organisations. The current legal position in respect of charitable incorporated organisations has been complicated by the making of a separate statutory instrument, the Charitable Incorporated Organisations (Insolvency and Dissolution) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. Those regulations disapplied some of the new provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 in relation to charitable incorporated organisations. One of these provisions, Section A51 of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, was used to make my department’s regulations, the Pension Protection Fund (Moratorium and Arrangements and Reconstructions for Companies in Financial Difficulty) Regulations 2020, in so far as they applied to charitable incorporated organisations. As a result, the provisions in my department’s regulations have not applied to charitable incorporated organisations since 13 August 2020, that being the date the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport regulations came into force.
The legal position, which is clear from reading both sets of regulations together, is that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport regulations repeal impliedly those aspects of my department’s regulations, in so far as they apply to charitable incorporated organisations. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will restore the position as set out in my department’s regulations at the next available opportunity. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport regulations do not otherwise affect the validity of my department’s regulations, or the powers that we use to make those regulations. I commend these regulations to the House.
Baroness Drake (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome these regulations, because they give the PPF the ability to exercise creditor rights across the full range of employers in moratoriums and restructuring plans where there is a PPF-eligible DB pension scheme.
There have not yet been any cases where a moratorium has been implemented for a business with an eligible scheme, so we have no case studies to judge how these measures are working in practice, including the potential for gaming that the new system introduced under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act. The Government did amend the Act to give the Secretary of State powers to amend the regulations in response to the emergence of perverse behaviours, but I want to pursue an issue which I raised at the time and which was never really answered.
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act and these regulations sit alongside the Pension Schemes Bill, which is currently in the Commons. Clause 107 of that Bill introduces new criminal offences if the conduct of employers and other persons, and entities such as banks, trustees and advisers, has a detrimental effect on the schemes such as the avoidance of the recovery of the whole or any part of the employer’s debt. That opens up the possibility that what may be considered lawful actions under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act could subsequently be considered offences under the Pension Schemes Bill. If a moratorium takes place and a restructuring plan or insolvency follows, the pension scheme’s positions will be weakened relative to some other creditors because the scheme’s full Section 75 debt is not triggered, and unsecured finance debt has super-priority status, outranking the pension fund debt and outranking pension liabilities in subsequent insolvency. That finance debt includes shareholder loans, inter-company loans—including from a director or parent company—as well as arm’s-length regulated activities and bank debts. During a moratorium, those financial debts continue to be payable, but pension deficit contributions do not. Therefore there remains a real risk of novel forms of moral hazard including, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, observed in this House on 23 June, when commenting on the poor behaviours that could occur,
“behaviour that is reprehensible but not, in the end, prohibited or even limited to reasonable amounts.”—[Official Report, 23/6/20; col. 138.]
A moratorium will become the point at which discussions about a restructuring deal begin, and will involve trade-offs. If the PPF or the Pensions Regulator considers either at the time or subsequently that an aim of an employer, parent company or other parties in seeking a moratorium and subsequent insolvency or restructuring plan was the avoidance of the employer’s debt, which legislation takes precedence, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act or the new Pension Schemes Bill? Would the regulator be able to use its enhanced powers to acquire information over and above that sent out to creditors during a moratorium? What would be the implications for any super-priority status granted or restructuring plan agreed or proposed where such a challenge by the regulator was made? Any clarity the Minister can provide will be helpful.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the new regulations to ensure that the Pension Protection Fund can better protect its interests and those of pension scheme members whose supporting employers unfortunately need to enter a moratorium period or restructuring due to the current crisis. These cover the entities, including charitable organisations, friendly societies, credit unions and so on, which may be particularly vulnerable in the current circumstances.
The Pension Protection Fund is one of our flagship organisations, which has done marvellous work to protect the pensions of millions in this country and has compensated those who would otherwise have faced the potential of losing their pension rights if the employer failed, and possibly of losing their jobs too. It is vital that employers and corporate directors are not allowed to game the PPF or take advantage of financial turmoil to walk away from liabilities on which so many ordinary workers rely, as the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, just said. I congratulate the PPF and put on record that I believe its staff have done brilliant work. I am sure that they will continue to do so with efficient administration and careful stewardship.
These regulations result from new measures passed in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act, which potentially weaken the rights of DB scheme members, trustees and managers to funds and assets belonging to the sponsoring employer during a moratorium or restructuring. I thank my noble friend and congratulate her on the way in which she introduced the regulations.
To allow the Pension Protection Fund to represent the trustees and managers in negotiations is an important measure, since it has to safeguard the interests not only of each pension scheme but of all other schemes too, and a moratorium does not trigger a PPF assessment period. If pension sponsors can more easily find ways to walk away from their liabilities without putting extra funds into the schemes in the current crisis, because it ranks only as an ordinary unsecured creditor without super-priority, and financial firms have leap-frogged up the priority order, the Pension Protection Fund could be forced to take on extra liabilities, which will ultimately fall on other sponsors via higher levy payments. As I expressed during the passage of the Act, I am particularly concerned at the ability of the sponsor or its other creditors to ask the courts to release assets that were supposed to have been pledged to the pension scheme as part of previous scheme-specific funding arrangements, leaving the scheme far more underfunded than was ever intended. I understand that the legislation ensures that any restructuring plan must not put creditors in a worse position than on insolvency, but can my noble friend confirm that this also definitely applies to the Pension Protection Fund? If she would like to write to me on my point, that will be fine. In addition, which parts of the previous regulations that she mentioned in her introduction have been revoked by this instrument?
Finally, I will ask a few other questions of which I have given my noble friend prior notice. I note that the Pension Protection Fund will produce guidance for monitors and directors on what information it will need to receive and its general approach to a moratorium or restructuring. When will that happen? Can she confirm the assessment of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, that no companies have yet gone into moratorium since this legislation was passed, and if any have, how many have done so and how many have a DB scheme attached?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and the noble Lord, Lord McColl, have withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Hain.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Drake and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who speak with tremendous authority on these pensions-related questions.
The Government’s insolvency reforms initially applied only to companies. They have now been extended to cover co-operative societies and community benefit societies such as credit unions, following lobbying, in particular by Co-operatives UK. So far, so good. Co-op retail societies have been doing well, with sales booming and market share rising, but some other smaller co-operatives have had to close for a few months or furlough staff.
In its efforts to modify measures originally designed for companies, Co-operatives UK gave priority to preserving co-operative and community purpose and to retaining democratic member control. I strongly applaud those efforts. I acknowledge too its September 2020 guidance to co-op societies facing financial strife, a 10-page brief on insolvency and financial liquidity that offers advice on how to respond to a crisis and how, in the worst case, to face up to a possible insolvency. However, I fear that those 10 pages of well-intended advice to co-op societies facing financial distress illustrate the shocking way in which workers’ rights are overlooked when businesses in Britain face going bust.
The opening paragraphs on page 1 of the guidance acknowledge that directors of co-op societies facing insolvency have a duty of care to the society’s creditors. When businesses face insolvency, the interests of creditors, especially those with secured debts, often and maybe always override those of employees. Witness what happens when companies in financial distress stay in business but use a “compromise agreement” to avoid meeting their obligations to the firm’s pension scheme. Only later does the Co-operatives UK brief say that only if there is no imminent threat of insolvency should directors
“Put employees and volunteers first”.
Sadly, even then the brief does not suggest consulting employees about the choice between furlough or redundancy. It recommends talking to workers about other options such as reducing pay and working hours only after big decisions have been taken.
The very last point at the foot of the final page of the brief covers good practice with employees. It says that
“looking after employees at a time of crisis is crucial”,
and refers to four pages of further advice, none of which covers possible insolvency. So there is no discussion of the possible threat to employees’ pension rights when businesses face insolvency, no mention of underfunded pension schemes, nothing about redundancy rights or unpaid wages, and nothing about unmet tax and national insurance obligations. That is a perfect illustration, sadly, of where workers stand when businesses face going bust: little more than an afterthought. But I do not blame Co-operatives UK: its brief simply reflects the sad reality of workers’ rights and the unfairnesses of Britain’s insolvency law.
Millions of jobs are in jeopardy today, in every sector of the economy, and it remains all too easy for directors of businesses facing financial distress to sacrifice the interests of the workforce by sidestepping their responsibilities for pay, redundancy, tax, national insurance and pensions. Despite the warm words we had during the passage of the insolvency Bill in the summer, the Government’s reforms have yet to address that fundamental flaw. Can the Minister give me any assurances about that, please?
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this debate on this corrected statutory instrument, which puts right a defect in its predecessor. It is important that there should be no risk that the Pension Protection Fund might be unable to intervene and protect its rights as a creditor in the event of a co-operative and community benefit society obtaining a moratorium under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act.
Since we started to debate the new measures introduced by the CIGA, my noble friend Lady Altmann and others have been assiduous in arguing for the strengthening of the powers and rights of the PPF. I agree that this is highly desirable, so I welcome the Government’s action in closing this loophole. Since entering into a moratorium under the Act is not in itself an insolvency event, without these regulations the PPF would be unable to exercise its rights as a creditor of a defined benefit pension scheme. The trustees might be placed under pressure to agree to the sale of an asset pledged to the pension fund in the knowledge that the PPF would be required to step in without taking account of the wider interests of the members of the scheme or, indeed, the payers of the levy which funds the PPF.
These regulations have been introduced without consultation in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, so it is welcome that we have the opportunity to discuss them today. While it is not directly the subject of today’s debate, I think it would be appropriate to hear a little more from the Minister on how the new provisions of CIGA are bedding down. My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley and others were concerned that a moratorium under the Act could not be applied for in order to rescue a company’s business, rather than the company itself. Further, I think it was unduly restrictive to exclude companies that have issued bonds in the amount of £10 million or more. As of 29 July, my noble friend Lord Callanan told your Lordships’ House that only one company had successfully entered into a moratorium. How many companies and other entities have now used the new moratorium process? I look forward to the contributions of other noble Lords and to the Minister’s reply to the debate.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, these regulations are necessary to ensure that the Payment Protection Fund can engage fully in a proactive and meaningful way in the conversations and decision-making processes when a company finds itself in difficulty. It is paramount that the PPF has this ability so that hard-earned pensions are safeguarded for their future security, and I fully endorse these regulations.
Turning to the PPF itself, I wish to raise two points. First, concerns were recently raised in the other place about the robustness of the fund at present, given the sadly expected rise in companies needing help and unable to support their pension funds. The fund had a healthy ratio of 118.6% as of March 2019, with 18.6% more in its funds than its obligations to pay out and an actuarial surplus of £6.1 billion. This year, while it is less than in 2019, March 2020 saw a healthy 113.4% ratio, with 13.4% more in its funds than its obligation to pay out. The PPF says:
“Market volatility forces us to remain vigilant and responsive to changes in our external environment which may also require changes in our strategy.”
We are now in uncharted waters as we head into winter, with the daily death toll from the virus rising. More and more restrictions are being placed around the country, and this will inevitably mean more and more businesses struggling to survive. In the current climate, what assurances can the Minister give us that everything is being done to ensure that the PPF is fit for purpose and able to sustain itself in order to support people and their pensions?
My second point concerns the actual amount of pension received. This is set to rise in line with the consumer prices index and capped at either 2.5% or 5%, whichever is the greater. Is this something that needs to be looked into in the light of the pandemic, in the same way that the Government have just done with the state pension uprating Bill?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, and I thank him very much for his analytical review, which I found very helpful. I thank my noble friend for setting out the background to these regulations so clearly. I welcome the regulations, which I understand are needed because of an oversight.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard is quite right that a moratorium or restructuring against creditor enforcement is not an insolvency proceeding, which is the reason we need these regulations to facilitate pension protection, and I strongly support that. I have several questions for my noble friend the Minister, of which I have given her some notice, but I understand that she may want to correspond in writing on some of the points and will copy answers to the Library if that is necessary.
First, what is comprehended by “co-operative and community benefit societies”? I strongly agree about the protection for them, and I understand that the term includes credit unions. Do we also need to take special measures to protect the pension schemes of friendly societies, building societies and other mutual societies—and, indeed, trade unions? Are they also covered? Perhaps my noble friend can answer that point.
Paragraph 3.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum talks of an ongoing risk that, during any break in the application of the provisions, a relevant co-operative and community benefit society could obtain a moratorium from its creditors, or a relevant society could propose a plan to restructure its business, without the Pension Protection Fund being able to intervene as a creditor to protect its interests. How real is that break and how much of a danger is there of that eventuality?
How healthy is the position of the Pension Protection Fund? I know that the Minister for Pensions spoke to the chair and chief executive of the fund over the summer and was reassured about its resilience. Indeed, my noble friend also gave us reassurance in September. However, when did a Minister from the department last speak to the chair and chief executive about the standing and resilience of the fund? It would be good to hear about that.
More generally, can my noble friend give an update on the institution of the moratorium, a point that several noble Lords have raised? I believe that it has not been used much since its inception, although there is clearly a difference of opinion between the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, on whether it has been used at all. Is the Minister in a position to shed some light on this and whether the moratorium is likely to be used much, if it has not yet been used?
Finally, has there been any contact with the Insolvency Practitioners Association to obtain its views on the regulations, regarding the need for more protection for bodies other than those covered? Is there an ongoing dialogue with the association, which would be desirable because it is expert in these areas and steeped in insolvency and related restructuring proceedings? Subject to those considerations, I strongly support the regulations.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the regulations and thank the noble Baroness for introducing them. It is right that they are now extended to cover co-operatives, friendly societies and other community purpose efforts. There will be many more occasions on which we need these regulations. I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, that the PPF, which is doing a brilliant job so far, will come under increasing strain. As others have said, I would appreciate a reassurance that the PPF has not only the funds but the staffing to cope with the increased demands that are bound to be made on it as more and more companies, community organisations and co-operatives are hit by the difficulties and effects caused by Covid.
More broadly, when companies and organisations start to negotiate a moratorium and then a restructuring, there is always a need for trade-offs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, suggested. My concern is that the trustees in many of those organisations are not sufficiently of a calibre to properly negotiate holding the line against owners and directors of businesses, who tend to drive for a solution that will benefit them and not the pension fund. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister reassured me on what we were doing to enhance the calibre of such trustees. Their responsibilities are great but their training is not.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I welcome and support this legislation. I should first refer to my declarations in the register. The speeches so far have been really useful and picked up elements that need attention.
This matter is indirectly about how many SMEs fail to survive the Covid crisis. That will drive the volume of financial support required from the PPF when pension schemes are inadequately financed. I anticipate that there will be sufficient funds to cover the first wave of SME pension deficits. A major wave could require government financial support via the PPF. There is also the issue referred to by others, of levy payers being required to contribute more than they see as fit and fair. The regulations extend the scope of the PPF’s rights as a creditor when moratoriums are in place for relevant community benefit organisations.
The Treasury has widened the cover of the PPF, adding charities, LLPs and virtually all community benefit schemes. The questions here relate to the volume and financial adequacy of their accompanying pension funds and whether these new institutions’ pension schemes are adequately funded long term. We have already had a detailed set of regulations from PPF boards with creditor rights, which have been widened and extended. The PPF is now able to intervene and help with restructuring plans.
The second Covid wave of SME failures could be larger than the first and is likely to be accompanied by high volumes of inadequately financed pension schemes needing to be restructured. I am interested to know the total value of pension fund assets covered by the PPF. The pension situation may require the Government to bring in further support for SMEs to save many from failing.
Down the road, there is the risk of excess investment in gilts, with large losses when inflation and interest rates rise. I am aware of private sector pre-packs that provide speedy and successful reorganisation of SMEs that have failed. The PPF might usefully have its pre-pack investment formula ready to be rolled out for different situations. The question that this raises is on whether the PPF has the necessary skills to organise and manage restructuring of pension assets and schemes, and to help with company restructuring. The reason for the PPF being established in 2005 was to be able to pay compensation to members of defined benefits schemes where the employer had failed and the pension scheme had insufficient assets to cover its liabilities.
It is noteworthy that Karen Buck MP and the previous Minister for Social Security pointed out that the measures in the regulations do not entirely restore the PPF’s powers re corporate insolvency and the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act; and the position occupied in restoring situations before the Act.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the explanation of the regulations. My understanding is that they extend the Pension Protection Fund’s rights as a creditor when co-operative and community benefit societies have a moratorium in place to protect them from creditor action.
My first question for the Minister relates to community benefit societies. The Pension Protection Fund is UK-wide and therefore applies to Northern Ireland, credit unions being a type of community benefit society operating there. There are two types of credit unions but the one that is widespread and of which I am most aware is the Irish League of Credit Unions, which operates in two jurisdictions. Given that it is headquartered in Dublin, would it benefit from the rights outlined in the regulations? Maybe the Minister could write to me if she did not have the answer to hand.
I take note of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, when she said that the Pension Protection Fund, set up by statute in 2004, exist to protect people and provide compensation when required. As a former Minister for Benefits and Welfare in Northern Ireland, I am fully aware that we have a system there of parity with London, particularly on social security and pension issues.
The Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive bring forward their own legislation which is exactly the same as that which exists in London. In fact, these regulations were enacted back in August. Can the Minister say what discussions have taken place with the Northern Ireland Executive on the potential impact of these regulations, taking into consideration that the pandemic will perhaps result in some insolvencies? Many people have already lost their jobs, so this is really about the ability of the Pension Protection Fund to discharge its responsibilities, particularly in a place such as Northern Ireland which does not have the inbuilt financial capacity and resilience to do that. That is particularly the case when confronted with an issue such as the pandemic, which brings its own financial pressures.
The issue of financial resilience was raised in the other place, so on a more general basis, I will ask the Minister this: is the Pension Protection Fund resilient enough? Other noble Lords who have already spoken have referred to that. Does it have the necessary resources to address the extraordinary potential problems that could ensue around insolvencies as a result of the pandemic? What measures will be taken to ensure that the fund is ready and capable of absorbing what could be potentially thousands more pension scheme members who will require security over the coming year? Perhaps the Minister could advise me in writing about what meetings have taken place between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Pension Protection Fund to review its performance.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing forward this statutory instrument. I also congratulate her and the Secretary of State on the quiet way in which they have handled the Covid virus fallout, in particular by adding thousands of those who have lost their jobs on to universal credit. I pay tribute to her and her team in that regard.
I join with my noble friend Lady Altmann in recognising the work and the contribution of the Pension Protection Fund, particularly at this very difficult time. I want very much to lend my support to the regulations before us, extending as they do the provisions to co-operative societies and benefit societies. Perhaps I may put a couple of questions to my noble friend.
I notice that it has not been deemed necessary to prepare an impact assessment when bringing forward these regulations, but as was noted in the House of Commons and as others have mentioned today, there is increasing concern about the resources that will be at the disposal of the PPF. Can my noble friend say what the take-up has been, to date, since these regulations came into effect?
I turn now to the Explanatory Memorandum, in particular Paragraph 7.5. It states:
“Whilst a moratorium is not in itself a procedure for a business to shed its liabilities, it will become the point at which discussions about a restructuring deal begin.”
In my noble friend’s view, who will be best placed to advise co-operative and community benefit societies if they wish to exercise their right to restructure under the provisions of the regulations? Does she share my concern, as well as the increasing unhappiness in the country, about something that perhaps might not occur in this instance but would do so in other cases where restructuring has taken place to try, as she put it, to prevent the unnecessary closure of firms in these circumstances? The big accountancy firms—I shall call them the “Group of Four”—while no doubt playing a great role, are charging huge fees for the privilege of advising these firms, and that very process may actually tip some firms over the edge into administration and closure.
Those are my two questions, but I broadly welcome the chance to debate and support these regulations. I echo how much we owe the Pension Protection Fund for the work that it is doing at this very difficult time. I also pay tribute to my noble friend, her team and the department.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, these regulations are connected to powers recently introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 to aid certain co-operative entities that are in financial difficulty. They will enable them to obtain a moratorium and thus give them respite from their creditors, or to be able to propose restructuring plans, including compromise arrangements to facilitate the rescue of their businesses. The regulations have been welcomed by the Labour shadow Minister for social security, who stressed the importance of the PPF.
As we know, the country is facing a dire economic outlook, with severe shocks being inflicted on many employers and on many pension schemes. The department responsible for social security must ensure that the PPF is ready and capable when it comes to absorbing the potentially thousands more pension scheme members who will require security over the coming year. It is imperative that the fund is in a good position to continue to provide compensation to those who need it.
The country is currently living with the health issues caused by the coronavirus. Under the three-tier scheme, thousands of businesses are going bankrupt, causing unprecedented levels of redundancies. Families are suffering due to a lack of income and are becoming increasingly dependent on food banks and charities. It is therefore vital that their pensions are protected.
It is pleasing to know that the Opposition has not objected to these regulations, but at the same time they have rightly raised questions in order to get the right levels of protection for employees.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee, for more than a decade now, of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund, and as having previously been the chairman of the Tunbridge Wells Equitable Friendly Society, again for about 10 years.
Like my noble friend Lord Bourne, I notice that no mention is made of friendly societies or mutual building societies. Indeed, I am slightly confused about the terminology of “community benefit society” being used, other than in relation only to Northern Ireland. Is that phrase now in common use for all mutuals? Bearing in mind that in today’s world, with the blessing of our Government, the number of mutuals is increasing across a whole spectrum of activities, I wonder whether they are being treated any differently from plcs as far as the PPF is concerned.
My second point arises from the High Court ruling on 22 June of this year about the compensation cap amazingly being unlawful. From a note I have received, I understand that the court is comfortable with the PPF’s approach to making a one-off calculation, saying that it is permissible
“provided it made sure that each individual, and separately each survivor, over the course of their lifetime received at least 50% on a cumulative basis of the actual value of the benefits that their scheme would have provided.”
I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench this: is everybody happy with that as a workable solution for the rather strange ruling that it is unlawful on the grounds of age discrimination?
Several of my colleagues have rightly raised the impending problems that are likely to arise from the pandemic. The PPF’s budget this year is based on raising £620 million. Can I assume that that figure is still the current levy? Will the PPF review its requirements against the target of being self-sufficient by 2030, because of the anticipated corporate failures arising from the pandemic?
I will raise one final point. I accept it is tangential to the SI, but my noble friend will probably be aware that the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum, commonly known as LAPFF, which is an association of 87 local authority pension funds, has accused the Financial Reporting Council of supporting the revised international accounting standards, claiming that they are less than those required by UK law. Will this have an impact on the Pension Protection Fund? I quite understand that, while I informed my noble friend of some of my earlier questions, I did not inform her of that one, so I am more than happy to have an answer in writing.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear presentation of complex material and her willingness to provide us with information about these regulations. We support this important measure, which gives powers to the Pension Protection Fund in the event of certain community companies being in financial difficulty under the new provisions brought in under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. As other noble Lords have said, it would be helpful to know just how far this extends and what other types of community companies might be included.
As the Minister explained, these regulations give the board of the Pension Protection Fund rights normally exercised by pension schemes’ trustees and managers. Under the new provisions, the Pension Protection Fund can end up picking up liabilities—for example, if the pension is underfunded. It is therefore reasonable that it should have a seat at the table, as it does for insolvencies. Given that these regulations will give the board of the PPF rights normally exercised by pension schemes’ trustees or managers, it is good to know that the PPF is required to consult with the trustees and managers who will lose their rights as a result.
The regulations give the PPF new rights relating to other community businesses, in addition to the limited liability partnerships and charitable incorporated organisations dealt with in the original measure. The new arrangements are welcome and timely, particularly in the light of the predicted economic impact of the pandemic and the further economic impact of Brexit on UK companies. However, there are still some outstanding questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer. I apologise for not giving her notice of them. Obviously, if she would prefer to write that is perfectly acceptable too.
What specific powers are given to the PPF? Can these override the views of the trustees should, for example, a course of action proposed by them seem unduly risky? What arrangements are in place to monitor the implications of the moratorium restructuring arrangements? When this issue was raised before, the Minister said that as yet, there were no occasions when the new arrangements had been used. Other noble Lords asked whether this is still the case. Nevertheless, if it is not, I am sure it will be very important to monitor the impact and effectiveness of the new arrangements.
Have the Government also assessed the capacity and sustainability of the PPF, particularly in terms of its expected future workload? Other noble Lords raised this issue as well. As other noble Lords have also asked, what protection will the Government provide the PPF in the event of high additional financial demands that might suggest increased levy payments or potential reductions in pension compensation? I hope the Minister will be able to answer these questions but, as I said, I am more than happy to have a written response.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of these regulations, and all noble Lords for their interesting contributions. I was also pleased to hear the Minister clarify the situation regarding the Pension Protection Fund (Moratorium and Arrangements and Reconstructions for Companies in Financial Difficulty) Regulations 2020—I will call them PPF No. 1, if that is okay—which we debated on 14 September. I understood from the Minister that the problem was that DCMS made regulations in August that, in effect, meant that the PPF No. 1 regulations no longer applied to charitable incorporated organisations.
I have just gone back to the proceedings of 9 October, when we debated the Charitable Incorporated Organisations (Insolvency and Dissolution) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020. When she introduced them, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, explained that her department had decided that it would simplify the moratorium regime, so it disapplied provisions that it felt were unnecessary, including Section A51 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which gives the power to make provision for regulations relating to pension schemes. Unfortunately, those were the very powers that the DWP had used to extend the PPF moratorium provisions to CIOs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, went on to say that
“DCMS will bring forward legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to enable these provisions to apply to CIOs. In the meantime, we do not anticipate there being any practical impacts on stakeholders whatever.”—[Official Report, 9/10/20; col. 847.]
Were those the regulations that had the effect of excluding CIOs from some of the provisions of the PPF No. 1 regulations? If so, why did DCMS press on and let Parliament debate them 12 days ago, rather than repealing and replacing them? After all, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said that it already had to reissue them once, owing to a mistake in the version that was laid, so it presumably could have done so again. I realise the Minister might need to ask DCMS, but I would be grateful if she did. Could she then write to me? Also, where are we now? Is it the case that, right now, the provisions of PPF No. 1 do not apply to CIOs? How long will that last? What are the consequences of that gap?
However, we are debating the Pension Protection Fund (Moratorium and Arrangements and Reconstructions for Companies in Financial Difficulty) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2020—or PPF No. 2 for my purposes. I understand that the PPF No. 2 regs are needed not because of that earlier difficulty, but because the Treasury has extended the remit of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act to apply to most co-operative and community benefit societies, and to credit unions, so the regulations ensure that the PPF covers those bodies that are now within the scope of the moratorium provisions of the Insolvency Act. This is complicated further by the fact that the original version of the PPF No. 2 regulations contained an error due to an omission in the Treasury regulations, so this is now in fact PPF No. 2, version two.
I am grateful that I got to the bottom of these complications. I will not make an issue of it, but I wanted to get it on the record because it feels important to have an audit trail of how we ended up here. However, these episodes reveal, first, three steps of drafting problems, and secondly, a failure in interdepartmental communication. What steps can be taken to ensure that DWP, or indeed other departments, find out in good time if another department is laying legislation that impacts on their own powers or provisions? Have the Government reflected on whether they are investing adequately in ensuring that departments have the resources needed for the process of drafting and cross-checking secondary legislation, or indeed primary legislation?
However, we are happy to support these regulations, since it is of course important that the PPF can step in and use its powers in the interests of the pension schemes of co-ops, community benefit societies and credit unions. But I will ask a couple of questions, including on an issue that I think other noble Lords have touched on. The moratorium provisions and, therefore, the scope of the PPF, will apply to co-op and community benefit societies, with some exceptions. Could the Minister clarify what the exceptions are? How confident is she that all the bodies to which the moratorium provisions of the Insolvency Act apply are now definitely within the PPF’s scope? If any are not, or are found later not to be, what is their legal status?
Turning to broader questions, I will be very interested to hear the answer to the question raised by my noble friend Lady Drake. This is potentially a very serious issue. We need clarity as to how the regulator could act and which legislation takes precedence in the circumstances she described. It is essential that pension funds and pensioners can always benefit from the protection that Parliament thought it had afforded them.
The PPF’s position was raised by several noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady McIntosh. Given the state of the economy and the risks to so many employers, what assessment has the department made of the strength and stability of the PPF and its ability to deal with what is coming down the track? What mechanisms are there for keeping that under careful and constant review? How will Parliament be kept informed? Noble Lords have asked about this whenever we have had the opportunity. Can the Minister think about how best she can give Parliament the ongoing assurance needed that the PPF will be able to do its job? It is incredibly important to pension funds and pensioners across the land that this agency works, and Parliament needs some assurance on that. I look forward to her reply.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for this helpful debate and their interventions. I hope that I have been able to establish why these amending regulations are required. Extending the Pension Protection Fund rights as creditor to relevant co-operative and community benefit societies and relevant societies, as applicable, will help to ensure, if those entities are also sponsoring employers of a Pension Protection Fund eligible pension scheme, that the interests of the scheme and the Pension Protection Fund are protected during a moratorium, or where a restructure of the business is proposed under the new corporate insolvency and governance legislation, as applicable.
I will do my very best to answer all questions; where that is not possible, I will write to the noble Lords concerned and place a copy of the letter in the Library. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked whether trustees agreeing to a corporate rescue will be within the scope of the new criminal sanctions in the Pension Schemes Bill, and which has precedence. We do not think that there is a conflict between the provisions in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 and measures in the Pension Schemes Bill. The new criminal offences proposed in the Bill make it clear that an offence is committed only if the person did not have a reasonable excuse for committing the act or engaging in a course of action. The aim of the powers in the Pension Schemes Bill is to target individuals who intentionally or knowingly mishandle pension schemes or put workers’ pensions at risk by behaviour such as chronic mismanagement of a business or avoiding pension liabilities. There is no intention to frustrate the legitimate business activities where they are conducted in good faith.
The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, also asked whether the Pension Protection Fund has the power to demand detailed information or conduct its own investigation into the financial position of the company. There are requirements in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act to provide information to the board of the PPF in relevant specified circumstances in respect of the moratorium and the restructuring measure. The Pension Protection Fund may also be able to use existing powers to request information from the company when it is relevant to the exercise of its functions in relation to an occupational pension scheme—in this case, the exercise of creditor rights. If the company refuses or neglects to provide the information without reasonable excuse, the company would then be guilty of an offence. However, a company could argue that the standard information provided to all creditors is enough to enable the board of the Pension Protection Fund to exercise its creditor rights, so it does not require any further information to exercise those rights above and beyond what other creditors get.
My noble friend Lady Altmann asked why these regulations revoke a previous set of regulations, and which parts were revoked. An omission in HMT’s order meant that there was no power to make provision for the Pension Protection Fund to exercise creditor rights in relation to relevant societies in my department’s regulations. As a result, certain provisions of those regulations were ultra vires. The entirety of our further set of regulations has been revoked and replaced with the regulations being debated today.
My noble friends Lord Trenchard, Lady Altmann and Lord Bourne, asked how many entities have gone into a moratorium since the legislation was passed. The Insolvency Act publishes insolvency statistics monthly, and the 14 October publication included the new moratorium for the first time. Two moratoriums have been entered into since the Act came into force on 30 September.
The noble Lord, Lord Loomba, the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Janke, and my noble friend Lord Bourne, raised the issue of the sustainability of the PPF’s funds as a result of Covid-19. The Pension Protection Fund is confident that its long-term funding strategy and diverse investment approach position it well to weather the current market volatility and future challenges. The Pension Protection Fund’s latest modelling shows that the fund is well placed to achieve its self-sufficiency target: the ability to pay Pension Protection Fund compensation in full, with a 10% buffer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, and my noble friends Lord Naseby and Lord Bourne, raised the issue of why our co-operative and community benefit societies need to be included. Mutuals are organisations owned and controlled by their members rather than by shareholders. They operate on a “one member one vote” structure, and include co-operatives, community benefit societies and financial services providers, such as building societies, credit unions and friendly societies.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Ritchie, asked about the Pension Protection Fund’s resources to intervene in moratoriums and restructuring in the current economic climate. The Pension Protection Fund has an in-house restructuring and insolvency team, and the ability to call on third-party advisers to support its work. The PPF keeps its level of resourcing under review, but at present is confident that it can engage in moratoriums and restructuring plans as necessary. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, asked what we were doing to enhance the ability of trustees. The Pensions Regulator has guidance on its website for trustees.
My noble friend Lord Flight, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and other noble Lords, raised the question of the skills of PPF in restructuring arrangements. The PPF has a dedicated in-house insolvency and restructuring team, and, as I have said, can also draw on a large range of third-party advisers. It is important to recognise that the PPF has been involved in restructuring arrangements since its launch in 2005. My noble friend Lord Flight also asked about the value of PPF pension schemes assets. The total assets in the October 2020 PPF 7800 Index were £1771.4 billion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, quite rightly and understandably, asked what engagement there has been with the devolved Administrations. We have worked with Northern Ireland on some of the detail of the policy and helped Northern Ireland in the preparation of its regulations, which have now been published. There was engagement with the devolved Administrations during the development of the measures included in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act. Northern Ireland has introduced its own regulations to ensure parity, as relevant. The noble Baroness also raised the issue of the credit union in Northern Ireland. I will write to her about that, as I will on the question about meetings between the DWP and the PPF regarding their performance.
My noble friend Lord Naseby asked what we are doing now that the courts have declared the PPF compensation cap as unlawful. The PPF compensation cap is still a live issue before the courts, and therefore I cannot comment further on it.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh raised the issue of an impact assessment. One has not been prepared for these regulations because the measures do not impose any regulations on business or lift any regulations from it so there is no direct regulatory impact.
My noble friend also asked whether we can seek to reduce reliance on the big four accountancy firms. The Competition and Markets Authority market study on the statutory audit market was published on 18 April 2019. The report made a series of wide-reaching and ambitious recommendations, including proposals for the joint audit and an operational split between audit and non-audit services.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, rightly mentioned workers, how they are looked after and their rights in relation to both these regulations and pension schemes. I am interested in the book that he referred to; if it is acceptable to the noble Lord, I will write to him with a more specific response to his questions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, asked what happens if scheme trustees or managers and the Pension Protection Fund do not agree on a course of action. We expect PPF and scheme trustees or managers to work together in the common interest of the pension scheme. For example, when a restructuring plan is proposed, in the circumstances specified in the regulations, both the scheme trustees and managers will be able to make an application to the court and participate in meetings ordered by the court.
My noble friend Lord Naseby asked in what circumstances the Pension Protection Fund would increase its levy. The PPF entered the pandemic in a strong financial position, as I said. Its latest annual report showed that it has significant reserves and it was clear that it monitors the position regularly.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked who will advise community and mutual organisations. Again, I will need to write to her on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked why DCMS still brought forward its regulations when they affected ours. I will write to consult my DCMS colleagues on her questions. I can confirm that CIOs are currently not covered by our regulations; DCMS will resolve this at the next possible opportunity.
I hope that I have answered the majority of noble Lords’ questions. As I have committed before, if I have not done so, I will write to noble Lords and place a copy in the Library. I commend the regulations to the House.
Arrangement of Business
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the hybrid proceeding will now resume. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Proceedings on the consideration of Commons Reasons on the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill will follow guidance issued by the Procedure and Privileges Committee. When there are counterpropositions, any Member in the Chamber may speak, subject to the usual seating arrangements and the capacity of the Chamber. Anyone intending to do so should catch my eye or email the clerk—it is probably better to email the clerk. Members not intending to speak on a group should make room for Members who do. All speakers will be called by the Chair.
Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk. The groupings are binding. Leave should be given to withdraw.
When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. Where there is no counterproposition, the Minister’s Motion may not be opposed. If a Member speaking remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. Noble Lords following proceedings remotely but not speaking may submit their voice, Content or Not-Content, to the collection of the voices by emailing the clerk during the debate. Members cannot vote by email; the way to vote will be via the remote voting system.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 21st October 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 View all Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 145-I Marshalled list for consideration of Commons reasons - (20 Oct 2020)
15:55 - Division conducted remotely on Motion B1 - Ayes: 168 / Noes: 254 - Motion B1 disagreed.
16:48 - Division conducted remotedly on Motion D1 - Ayes: 320 / Noes: 242 - Motion D1 agreed.
17:55 - Division conducted remotely on Motion E1 - Ayes: 166 / Noes: 237 - Motion E1 disagreed.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to move Motion A1.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
In the Commons on Monday, the Government chose to describe your Lordships’ amendment calling for an independent report on the impact of the end of free movement on the social care sector as “well intentioned”, but went on to claim that it was “unnecessary”—
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, if I may intervene, I was going to give a speech. Would the noble Lord bear with me while I speak?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I did call the Minister, but she sat down, so I presumed she had finished. No? Baroness Williams of Trafford.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I was very politely waiting to be asked, then the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, came in. Shall we start again?
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will turn to Motion A, Amendment 1, and Amendment 1B in lieu, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which would require the Secretary of State to publish an independent report on the impacts of ending free movement on the social care sector. I start by acknowledging the work of noble Lords in the scrutiny of this important Bill, which ends free movement between the EU and the UK, and the passion and commitment with which your Lordships have spoken on a number of issues. We have debated many issues, and although there are some areas on which we may still disagree, I always come back to the focus of this Bill: ending free movement and delivering on the Government’s manifesto commitment to introduce a firmer, fairer points-based immigration system.
Amendment 1B requires the Secretary of State to publish the response to the independent assessment within two months of publication and make a statement to Parliament within seven sitting days of publishing the response. I recognise the good intentions behind Amendment 1, but the other place disagreed to it because independent reporting already exists in this area through Skills for Care and the Migration Advisory Committee. The Government remain committed to improving social care, focusing on increased funding and training opportunities and improved recruitment practices. I will reflect further on a few related points.
“Impact of section 1 on the social care sector
(1) The Secretary of State must commission and publish an independent assessment of the impact of section 1, and Schedule 1, on the social care sector within six months of this Act being passed.
(2) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent Chair to conduct the assessment.
(3) The assessment must consider the impact of provisions in section 1, and Schedule 1, on—
(a) the social care workforce
(b) available visa routes for social care workers;
(c) long-term consequences for workforce recruitment, training and employee terms and conditions; and
(d) such other relevant matters as the independent Chair deems appropri-ate.
(4) A copy of the independent assessment must be laid before both Houses of Parliament within fourteen days of its publishing date.
(5) The Secretary of State must publish a response to the independent assessment within two months of its publishing date.
(6) The Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament within seven sitting days of publishing the response under subsection (5).””
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for what she has just said about my amendment, which started off life in Committee, being moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, albeit not with exactly the same words. As I understand it from what the Minister has just said, the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment to the Bill but are giving a commitment to carry out the terms of the amendment in full, and that must, therefore, include the timescales laid down in it. If that is the case—and the Minister gave a commitment to carry out the terms of my amendment—then I will not seek pursue my Motion to a vote.
I note that the Minister said that she wished to discuss with me how we ensure—I I think that was what she said—that we get the detail right, and, of course, I am happy to do that within the context of the Government having committed to carry out the terms of my amendment in full, including the timescales laid down in it. I do not think I misheard what the Minister said: I certainly heard the phrase “give a commitment to carry out the terms of his amendment” being used with no caveats added. Therefore, on the basis that the Government are committing themselves to carry out the terms of my amendment in full, then I would be prepared to withdraw my Motion when the time comes.
However, I would like to add one further comment. Within the terms of the amendment, it is, of course, left to the Government to decide who will undertake the
“independent assessment of the impact of section 1, and Schedule 1, on the social care sector”.
These relate to the ending of free movement. From what the Minister has said, I suspect that a candidate will be the Migration Advisory Committee, whose views on even the single issue of funding social care for higher wages have been ignored “for some years”, to use the MAC’s words. That does not suggest that it is a body whose views on that issue carry much weight with the Government. It will be vital for the independent assessment to have a significant and meaningful input from people of influence who understand fully the way in which the social care sector functions and the constraints under which it operates. Although it is a matter for the Government, I hope they will ensure that that vital, significant and meaningful input occurs.
On the basis that I have understood clearly what the Minister has said on behalf of the Government—namely, that she has made a commitment to carry out the terms of my amendment, and that this must be in full because there were no caveats added—then I would be prepared not seek to pursue the matter to get it written into the Bill. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The following Member in the Chamber has indicated that he wishes to speak: the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her response this afternoon and her agreement that an independent assessment would be undertaken. I endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Rosser. At the end of the day, whatever the worthy work of Skills for Care has been and whatever the recommendations made by the Migration Advisory Committee, we have a big problem with the social care sector in relation to the workforce challenges. The intention that, basically, most care workers cannot meet the criteria in the new health and care visa means that, from the beginning of next year, further pressure will be leant upon the sector.
Given that the sector is almost totally dependent either on government funding or on self-funders—who are already hugely overstretched because they sometimes pay more than £1,000 a week for their care—this will not be solved simply by saying that we can rely on the UK population. There will have to be an injection of resources; this is inescapable. In thanking the Minister, which I do very much, for her response this afternoon, I remind the House that the social care sector faces many huge challenges, and, in the end, the Government are going to have to come up with the necessary if we are going to get it out of the problems that it now faces.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
Does anyone in the Chamber wish to speak? We have not received any requests as yet. Does the Minister wish to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt? No? Then I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
I am, of course, pleased to hear the Government’s decision on this. From and on behalf of our Benches, I added my name to the previous versions of this amendment. The point has been made throughout the Bill that the amendment is unnecessary, but, given that its proposers have kept on pressing, clearly they have not been satisfied. This is good news, but one always has to think around the subject, and I wonder what the correct level of scrutiny is. To me, it involves stakeholders very widely and the context for consideration of a proposal, which, in this case has to be more than just the immigration provisions which may apply. One thing on which I agreed with the Commons and with others who have spoken is that the social care crisis cannot be solved through immigration alone: it is much wider than that.
The correct level of scrutiny involves the organisation being scrutinised—in this case, the Government and their proposals—not being committed to its initial proposition but being prepared to listen to the responses. We are always faced with statutory instruments where there is no possibility of making a change. It would be tragic—I do not think that is putting it too highly—if the opportunity is not taken on this occasion to adopt a much more open-minded practice. Having said that, I welcome what the Minister has said.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I apologise to noble Lords; I keep wanting to pop up at the wrong time during this debate. However, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this part. First, I come to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and absolutely commit to the timescales set out in his amendment. He asked, with a certain degree of cynicism, I think, who will carry it out and suggested the Migration Advisory Committee. It must be a hot contender for it, but I take his point about the skills of the people who carry it out.
When settling on the proposals for the new points-based system, we did not do it in isolation; we conducted an extensive programme of engagement with stakeholders— as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, alluded to—across the whole of the UK, including in the social care sector, listening to people’s concerns and hearing about the unique challenges they face.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have in different ways pinpointed that the workforce challenges are not single silver-bullet issues—they will not be solved by continuing along the trajectory of low pay. It is incumbent on employers in what has been, throughout the last few months and years, a very valued occupation not to continue to rely on low-paid workers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, social care cannot be solved just by immigration; progress needs to be made with a whole plethora of interventions in this area of a much-needed, well-respected and very much appreciated workforce.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
In the light of what the Minister has said, which I appreciate and welcome, I shall withdraw my Motion. Obviously, I do so on the basis of the Government having given a commitment to carry out the terms of my Amendment 1B in full. I am happy to participate in the further discussions which the Minister has said she wishes to have with me, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 2, in its previous form, was also disagreed to in the other place. It seeks to continue certain family reunion arrangements provided by EU law—the so-called Surinder Singh route.
Amendment 2B, tabled in lieu by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require the Government to provide the right for British citizens resident in the EEA or Switzerland by the end of the transition period to return to the UK accompanied, or joined, by their non-British close family members on current EU free movement law terms until 31 December 2040—that is, for a period of 20 years from the end of the transition period. They would retain preferential family reunion rights for that period. For the next 20 years, family members of British citizens living in the EEA or Switzerland would continue not to be subject to the same Immigration Rules as family members of other British citizens. This would perpetuate a lack of parity, which the Government cannot accept.
Family members of British citizens resident in the EEA or Switzerland at the end of the transition period are not protected by the withdrawal agreements in terms of returning to the UK, but we have made reasonable transitional arrangements for them. British citizens living in the EEA or Switzerland will have until 29 March 2022 to bring their existing close family members—a spouse, civil partner, unmarried partner in a long-term relationship, child or dependent parent—to the UK on EU law terms. The family relationship must have existed before the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020, unless the child was born or adopted after that date, and must continue to exist when the family member seeks to come to the UK. Those family members will also then be eligible to apply to remain in the UK under the EU settlement scheme.
Family members will be able to come to the UK after 29 March 2022 but will then need to meet the requirements of the family Immigration Rules. Those rules apply to the family members of other British citizens, irrespective of where they come from, and reflect the public interest in preventing burdens on the taxpayer and promoting integration. This is a fair and balanced policy. It was announced on 4 April 2019, so those affected will have had almost three years to decide whether they wish to return to the UK by 29 March 2022 on current EU law terms and, if they do, to make plans to do so.
The Government’s approach strikes the right balance between providing sufficient time for British citizens and their family members living in the EEA or Switzerland to make decisions and plans for returning to the UK, and ensuring equal treatment of the family members of British citizens under the Immigration Rules as soon as is reasonably possible once free movement has ended. We must be fair to other British citizens, whether they are living overseas or in the UK. The same rules should apply to all, not continue for the next 20 years to give preferential treatment to those relying on past free movement rights, which will have been abolished. That is what a fair global immigration system means.
I hope that noble Lords will not insist on their Amendment 2 or agree to Amendment 2B in lieu. I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Baroness Hamwee
Moved by
At end insert “but do propose Amendment 2B in lieu—
“(5A) Regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision to enable UK citizens falling within the personal scope of—
(a) the Withdrawal Agreement,
(b) the EEA EFTA separation agreement, or
(c) the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement,
to return to the United Kingdom before 31 December 2040 accompanied by, or to be joined in the United Kingdom before 31 December 2040 by, close family members.
(5B) Regulations under subsection (1) may not impose any conditions on the entry or residence of close family members of UK citizens which could not have been imposed under EU law relating to free movement, as on the day on which this Act comes into force.
(5C) For the purposes of subsection (5A)—“close family members” means—
(a) children (including adopted children), and
(b) other close family members where that relation subsisted on or before 31 January 2020 and has continued to subsist;
“Withdrawal Agreement”, “EEA EFTA separation agreement” and “Swiss citizens’ rights agreement” have the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (interpretation).””
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am moving an amendment similar to that moved at a previous stage but with a change to meet one of the points made against it.
It came as a shock to me to learn that there will be restrictions on, and conditions applying to, a UK citizen wishing to return to the UK with a non-British family. In Committee, I asked what the Minister would advise a couple with elderly parents in both countries, for both of whom they wanted to care. This rather follows on from the previous amendment. Following that, I received many emails describing many, varied families affected. They all explained the anxiety they felt.
The minimum income requirement will apply, as the noble Baroness said, after March 2022 as it applies now to a UK citizen wishing to bring a non-UK—currently non-EEA—family to this country. I have always felt that the MIR is very harsh. It presents real difficulties, including as regards the spouse’s contribution to the household income. In the 21st century, most households are necessarily two-income households. In response to the point that these families should be treated the same as families that include non-EEA citizens, I say that it should not apply to them either, but that would not be within the scope of this Bill—although I would have liked to have taken that opportunity. Those families will, in very many cases, have been aware of the situation when the family unit was created.
I understand the Government’s concern that EEA citizens should be treated the same as citizens in the rest of the world after the end of free movement, but the situations are not exactly the same. When marriages were made and families created after we had acquired rights of free movement, who would have given a thought to what might happen if those rights ended, or indeed given thought to whether those rights might end? And who in the British military who met their spouse when they were serving abroad would have contemplated this situation? I do hope that the Secretary of State has read their letters.
The provision may not be retrospective in a technical sense, but in an everyday sense it is. This is not something that is widely understood, even now. The Government’s original proposal in June 2017 did not deal with the issue. As the noble Baroness said, the public announcement of the 2022 date came out in a paper in April 2019 and was presented as a concession. The paper said that the Government recognised that UK nationals needed certainty—this was after we were supposed to have left the EU.
I wondered whether I had missed something here, so I checked on what had been done, and when, to make people aware of the position. Had the Foreign and Commonwealth Office attempted to draw this to people’s attention? Had our embassies raised it in local town hall meetings abroad? One, rather dry, comment made to me was that, if these citizens had voting rights, the embassies would have been able to make direct contact with them. I understand that the targeted FCO campaigns have focused largely on rights in the host country, advising people to register and to change their driving licence, for instance.
On the “Living in France” and “Living in Italy” pages on GOV.UK, I clicked on “Ending your time living abroad” and, after a couple more clicks, found—because I was looking for it—“bringing your family”, which told me that a visa would be needed for them. One might easily stop there. Immigration rules required further clicks, and so on. I understand that all this is still coming as a surprise, and of course a shock, to those who happen to trip over it.
An EU citizen here now or by the end of this year can bring in family members—and quite right too. But is it not right for our own compatriots? This is discrimination against UK citizens. It is not as if what we propose would open any floodgates. It is self-limiting: no-one would qualify after free movement had ended; it is not a “perpetual” or “for ever” right, as it has been badged.
Criticism was made on Report that there was no cut-off date by which a UK national must return to the UK. Ministers say that three years gives a reasonable period to plan. This version of the amendment includes a cut-off date—deliberately long—of 20 years after the end of the transition period. By then, most of those affected, who will have formed settled relationships and families, are likely to be over 50 with parents of 70 or 80, so their families would be in a better position to know whether returning to the UK was likely to be necessary. The Minister in the Commons presented the 2022 date as reflecting a need
“to be fair to other British citizens”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/20; col. 804.]
as if there is something “other” about UK people who have married people from the EEA. He also said that the Government would keep the policy “under review”, so I would be grateful if the noble Baroness the Minister could expand on that today: when, how, with whom? She has described the policy as simple fairness. We disagree. What we are proposing is what I would describe as fair, and I will wish to test opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The following Members in the Chamber have indicated a wish to speak: the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Oates. I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Hamwee has said. The Minister said that the arrangements that the Government have made are “reasonable”, but one has also to think of the reasonable expectation of British citizens who may have moved abroad, married, set up partnerships and had families with citizens from elsewhere in the EEA. They would have had no reason to suppose that the conditions and rules under which they did that would change—after all, the promise of a referendum in 2015 came somewhat out of the blue; it really was not expected. My noble friend’s amendment would accommodate fairly those reasonable expectations while meeting the Government’s apparent objection that they do not want a period which is unlimited.
The Conservative manifesto for the 2017 general election promised to legislate for “votes for life” for Britons living abroad. That has not happened, but, at the time, the Conservatives rejoiced at scrapping what they called the previous Labour Government’s “arbitrary” 15-year rule. I think that one could also describe the Government’s three-year rule in this scenario for UK citizens living in the EU as arbitrary.
Mr Chris Skidmore, who at the time was Minister for the Constitution, said:
“British citizens who move abroad remain a part of our democracy and it is important they have the ability to participate … Our expat community has an important role to play.”
One can deploy that statement in this context. These were valuable sentiments about Britons living abroad. I would transfer them to say that British citizens residing elsewhere in the EEA should have the right to participate not only politically but economically and socially in this country. To put them now in a quandary of having to decide by March 2022 what their family circumstances with parents and children could be in the decades ahead is an unnecessary, arbitrary and unreasonable imposition. Twenty years is a highly reasonable proposition.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak only briefly because my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford have comprehensively set out the injustices that will be visited on thousands of British citizens and their families if the Government’s policy stands. I shall make just two points.
First, the argument that to retain the existing rights of UK citizens with EEA spouses or families is somehow discriminatory or unfair as against UK citizens with non-EEA spouses has no merit. I speak as a UK citizen with a non-EEA spouse. When we made decisions about our lives, we did so in the knowledge and understanding of the rules at the time, just as UK citizens with EEA spouses made decisions about their lives on the basis of the rules at the time, which they could have had no reasonable expectation would change. The only way in which one could say that discrimination would occur would be if this amendment suggested that UK citizens forming relationships with EEA citizens going forward should be afforded different rights, but that is not what it says.
Secondly, yesterday, your Lordships’ House passed two amendments in lieu on agri-food standards. They were important and I was pleased to support them, but this amendment, I venture, is much more important, because it is about people’s lives. If it is not passed, huge misery will be inflicted on a large number of people. I do not think that we have really understood the level of suffering that will be inflicted. Frankly, it is wrong and heartless, and we should not allow it to stand.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
We do not minimise the importance of this issue any more than we minimise the importance of any of the amendments and the issues they covered which this House sent to the Commons and which the Commons rejected. As has been said, British citizens who moved to other EU countries will lose the right they had to return to this country of birth with a non-British partner or child, perhaps to look after an ageing parent, unless they can meet financial conditions that will be beyond the reach of many. While British citizens who have moved to the EU or EEA before the end of 2020 will face these restrictions, EU citizens who have moved to the UK before the end of 2020 will not.
However, while this issue of the right for UK citizens to return with their family was referred to by some speakers during the Commons proceedings on Monday, it was not taken to a Division. This rather indicates that we have now taken this matter as far as we can at present, having sent it to the Commons once. For that reason we will abstain if Amendment 2B in lieu is taken to a vote. In the Commons on Monday, the Government said they would
“continue to keep this area under review”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/20; col. 804.]
We call on it to continue to look further at this issue, in which I declare a personal family interest, outside the Bill and well before the deadline date of 29 March 2022 for bringing existing close family members to the UK on current EU law terms.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I start with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who rightly points out that the Commons did not divide on this matter on Monday. We should remind ourselves that the British people voted to leave the EU in 2016; we are now four years on from that point.
I will answer the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee: of course we keep all legislation and policy under review, and we are assisted by MAC in that endeavour. We recognise that UK nationals who moved to the EU expected free movement rights to continue. That is why we have provided for these transitional arrangements, but we have to be fair to other UK nationals whether they live overseas, beyond the EU, or in the UK. The UK family Immigration Rules reflect the public interest in preventing burdens on the taxpayer and promoting integration. UK nationals protected by the withdrawal agreement because they are living in the EEA before the end of the transition period do, of course, have lifetime rights to be joined in their host state by existing close family members. This mirrors the rights of EEA citizens living in the UK by then.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, challenged me about the date of 29 March 2022 being arbitrary. It represents three years after the date when the UK was originally supposed to leave the EU. For me, it strikes the right balance between providing sufficient time for UK nationals and their family members living in the EEA or Switzerland to make decisions and plans for returning to the UK, and ensuring equal treatment of the family members of UK nationals under the Immigration Rules as soon as reasonably possible, once free movement to the UK has ended.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
I am of course grateful to my noble friends who supported this amendment. I hope that I never give my noble friend Lady Ludford cause to look up what I have said in the past. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Oates, who—if you will—embodies the point I was making about the differences between those who married EU citizens, not knowing what was coming down the road, and those in his position.
I am disappointed in Labour’s response to this because it is a legislative opportunity to get this sorted quickly. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and I asked about keeping the policy under review, but it sounds from the Minister as if this is no more than the normal keeping of a policy under review: no detail, no particular plan, no timetable. What she said is not a reason not to pursue this amendment. As my noble friend says, this is not fair and I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I ask that this House do not insist on its Amendments 3, 6, 7, 8 and 10, as set out in Motions C, F, G, H and K respectively, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 3A, 6A, 7A, 8A and 10A.
I will speak to Motion C on Lords Amendment 3, which provides for children in care and care leavers who lose their free movement rights under the Bill to obtain indefinite leave to remain—or settled status—under the EU settlement scheme where they apply to the scheme or a local authority does so on their behalf. This would be regardless of how long the child or young person had been in the UK. I will also address Motions F, G, H and K, covering Lords Amendments 6, 7, 8 and 10, which cover a time limit on detention.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will be disappointed with me on the position taken by the other place on Lords Amendment 3, but I reassure him that the Government agree as to the importance of protecting the rights of children in care and care leavers and other vulnerable groups as we end free movement. The Home Office continues to provide extensive support to local authorities, which have relevant statutory responsibilities for this cohort, to ensure that these children and young people, like other vulnerable groups, get UK immigration status under the EU settlement scheme. This includes the Settlement Resolution Centre, which is open seven days a week to assist local authorities with this work. It also includes grant funding over last year and this year of up to £17 million to organisations across the UK to support vulnerable groups in applying to the scheme. The number of organisations funded for this work has now been increased from 57 to 72.
A recent survey of local authorities by the Home Office has so far identified fewer than 4,000 children in care and care leavers eligible for the EU settlement scheme, with over 40% of these having already applied for status under the scheme. Most of those who have applied have already received an outcome of settled status. Local authorities are making good progress to identify and support relevant cases.
The Government have made it clear that, in line with the withdrawal agreements, where a person eligible for status under the EU settlement scheme has reasonable grounds for missing the 30 June 2021 deadline, they will be given a further opportunity to apply. We have also made it clear that those reasonable grounds will include where a parent, guardian or local authority does not apply on behalf of a child. Therefore, if a child in care or a care leaver misses the deadline, they will still be able to obtain lawful status in the UK.
The Government are not therefore persuaded of the need for this amendment, which also presents some technical problems that the Government cannot accept. It effectively exempts this cohort from the suitability requirements of the scheme when there is absolutely no reason to do so. It also seeks to backdate the settled status granted following an application made after the 30 June 2021 deadline. This runs completely counter to the general operation of the Immigration Rules made under the Immigration Act 1971, under which status has effect from the date on which it is granted.
I hope noble Lords will agree that, while understanding and supporting the motivation behind this amendment, the House should not insist on this amendment.
I shall now address Motions F, G, H and K on Lords Amendments 6, 7, 8 and 10, which relate to introducing a detention time limit on EEA and Swiss citizens. Detention is a very important issue that merits debate, but it is not directly relevant to the purpose of this Bill, which is to end free movement. The central point of the Bill is a commitment to a global immigration system, and equal treatment of immigrants from all nationalities as we exit the transition period. These amendments seek to impose a time limit on detention only for EEA and Swiss citizens, which would lead to a discriminatory position for those who are not. It is important to acknowledge that the other place disagreed to the amendment for these reasons.
On the substance of the amendment, to impose a 28-day time limit on detention is not practical and would encourage and reward abuse. No European country has adopted anything close to a time limit as short as that which is proposed in these amendments, and countries such as Australia and Canada have not gone down this route at all. We need an immigration system which encourages compliance but, where people refuse to leave voluntarily, we must have the ability to enforce that removal. We do not detain indefinitely; there must always be a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable timescale, and this is a complex process that requires a case-specific assessment to be made for every single person for whom detention is considered.
A time limit would allow those who wish to frustrate the removal process to deliberately run down the clock until the time limit is reached and release is guaranteed. Under these amendments, any person in scope who is detained for 28 days will automatically be released, regardless of the facts of their case, including some foreign national offenders who present a genuine threat to public safety.
The Home Office operates a number of safeguards to review detention and prevent anyone entering detention who would otherwise comply with a removal from the community. Some 95% of people who are liable for removal from the UK are managed in the community while their cases are progressed. The detention gatekeeper and case progression panels are key operational safeguards. Where detention is deemed necessary, there is judicial oversight through bail applications to the tribunal, and the continuing detention of any individual remains under regular review by the Home Office.
Everyone in immigration detention is protected by these safeguards, which entitle them to apply for bail hearings at any point, to appeal against any refusal of asylum and to have access to legal representation. If we accept a 28-day time limit, it will enable these people to exploit the immigration system, making unmeritorious claims to avoid their removal. In the current immigration system, it is only in the most complex cases that detention exceeds 29 days. A time limit would cripple the function of the detention system, exposing it to abuse, undermining our capacity to enforce removals and potentially endangering public safety. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this amendment is not only unconnected with the main purpose of this Bill but unsupportable, and I urge them not to insist on this amendment, which would lead to unfair treatment between EEA and non-EEA citizens. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I very much regret the rejection of the clause to which your Lordships had agreed regarding children in care. The Minister said on a previous occasion that we were united on children in local authority care needing a secure status. But insisting on this being achieved for this cohort—and we all understand the difficulties—through the EU settled status scheme rather than on a declaratory basis seems to indicate that the Government are more concerned not to acknowledge that the scheme cannot perfectly deal with every situation rather than to acknowledge the special situation of these children and young people.
The Commons formal reason is that local authorities are supporting this cohort, and the Government are funding support. Well, good—but what do the Government have to lose? The Minister in the Commons said that the idea of applying such a provision retrospectively runs counter to the general operation of the Immigration Rules. But when it is not a tightening of the rules, I do not understand the comment—but there it is.
I also of course regret the rejection of applying a time limit to the detention of asylum seekers and others. The suite of amendments applies clear criteria for detention, and national security would disqualify a detainee from the time-limit provisions. I do not think that it is right to use the position of foreign national offenders as if all detainees were offenders. The amendments would also prevent cat-and-mouse redetention.
The great majority of detainees are released eventually into the community, but they do not know when this will be. Again, the Commons Minister said that it was not possible just to detain someone indefinitely “as such”. That misses the point that there is no time limit, and that means a loss of hope. For months, people in the UK whose lives are restricted to some extent have been saying that they need to know when all this will end, which is understandable—and there is something of a read-across.
The Commons formal reason is that there are already procedural safeguards to ensure the lawfulness of the period of detention. They work so well that, as my right honourable friend Alistair Carmichael observed, £7 million in compensation was paid out last year for 272 cases of wrongful detention.
But I can at least use this opportunity to say how much we welcome the Court of Appeal’s judgment today quashing the judicial review and injunctions policy on the application of medical justice, with the intervention of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the good work of the Public Law Project—not, if I have the Minister’s word correctly, an “unmeritorious” application.
We shall not pursue this matter today, but we will be back soon on the issue, because it is a matter of fairness and humanity.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the decisions taken by the other place on all these issues are most disappointing. I thought my noble friend Lord Dubs made a convincing case, but sadly it was not listened to in the other place, as is so often the case now. I hope the Government will take a constructive attitude in working with local authorities to protect vulnerable children. Many local authorities have considerable pressures on them in terms of looking after children in care, and I hope the noble Baroness will confirm that there is a positive attitude from the Government to address these concerns, even if they are not prepared to accept my noble friend’s amendment today.
I note the comment—the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also made the point—that the other Motions in this group make reference to all these dangerous criminals who would potentially be released into the public. I think we have to accept that the people we are talking about here are vulnerable people, and that if there are people who are dangerous criminals, there are other procedures to deal with them. We should not be wrapping people up like that: these are vulnerable people who need our help and support. There is an issue about people being locked up in detention when they have done nothing wrong and not knowing when they will get their release date.
The noble Baroness may well say that they are normally released into the community. That is obviously really good news, but if you are locked up in a cell or in a detention centre and you do not know when you will be released, the fact that you will be released at some point in the future may not be a huge comfort to you. Again, we are not going to pursue these issues any further today, but the fact that the Government rely on those arguments underlines the weakness of their case in this respect. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that we will return to these issues at a later date, but we will not be pressing any of them today.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their comments. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, initially challenged me on what the Government have to lose. It is not really about what the Government have to lose; it is a demonstration that, throughout this process, we have constantly articulated just what the Government are doing to ensure that children in care, or other vulnerable people, are able to register for the EU settlement scheme. We have put in quite a lot of resource to ensure that that happens. We have increased the number of organisations helping in this regard from 57 to 72 and we will put significant funding in place to ensure that people eligible to apply do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that we are acting as though all detainees are offenders, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about the number of people detained who are vulnerable. In fact, a snapshot of offenders from the EU detained at the end of March 2020 found that if a 28-day time limit were in place, we would have been required to release into the community 166 foreign national offenders being held under immigration powers to effect their deportation. Of these offenders, 35 had committed very serious crimes, including murder, rape, offences against children and other serious sexual or violent offences. There is no indefinite detention, but it is necessary sometimes to keep people detained, particularly serious offenders and those frustrating their removal.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I shall put the question.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, Lords Amendment 4 and Amendment 4B in lieu, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, relate to family reunion and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. I ask noble Lords to note that the other place highlighted that Lords Amendment 4 would engage financial privilege. Amendment 4B in lieu would remove the previous restriction on charging a fee for applications for leave to enter under the proposed new route; however, there remain a number of costs with this amendment. These relate to family reunion applications—not just the cost of processing the application but the cost of providing asylum support and accommodation for asylum seekers awaiting a decision on their claim. Clearly those costs could not and should not be recouped via an application fee.
Turning to the substance of the amendment, we had many interventions on this issue on Report and I confirm the Government’s commitment to the principle of family unity and to supporting vulnerable children—we take their well-being very seriously. We have a proud record of providing safety to those who need it, through our asylum system and world-leading resettlement schemes. We have granted protection and other leave to more than 44,000 children seeking protection since 2010. The UK continues to be one of the highest recipients of asylum claims from unaccompanied children across Europe: we received more claims than any EU member state in 2019, and 20% of all claims made in the EU and UK.
We have made a credible and serious offer to the EU on new arrangements for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. It remains our goal to negotiate such an arrangement. I reaffirm my commitment to further constructive engagement to identify ways to level up access to safe and legal work pathways for talented displaced persons. I once again thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and Talent Beyond Borders for discussing this with us and I look forward to continuing to work together to attract the best and brightest talent to the UK, regardless of background. Furthermore, as the Home Secretary made clear in her speech at the Conservative Party conference, safe and legal routes are a core part of our proposed reforms to the asylum system to ensure that it is both fair and firm.
I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, not to insist on his amendment, or to divide the House on Amendment 4B in lieu. I beg to move.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
“Leave to enter: family unity and claims for asylum
(1) For at least such time as a relevant agreement has not been concluded and implemented, a person to whom this section applies must be granted leave to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of making a claim for asylum.
(2) This section applies to a person who—
(a) is on the territory of any relevant Member State;
(b) makes an application for leave to enter for the purpose of making a claim for asylum; and
(c) would, had that person made an application for international protection in that Member State, have been eligible for transfer to the United Kingdom under Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 by reason of a relevant provision if the United Kingdom remained a party to that Regulation.
(3) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements to ensure that applicants receive a decision regarding their application under subsection (2)(b) no later than two months from the date of submission of the application.
(4) A claim for asylum made under subsection (2)(b) must remain pending throughout such time as no decision has been made on it or during which an appeal could be brought within such time as may be prescribed for the bringing of any appeal against a decision made on a claim or during which any such appeal remains pending for the purposes of section 104 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (pending appeal); and a claim for asylum remains one on which no decision has been made during such time as the claim has been made to the Secretary of State and has not been granted, refused, abandoned or withdrawn.
(5) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a strategy for ensuring that unaccompanied children on the territory of a relevant Member State continue to be relocated to the United Kingdom, if it is in the child’s best interests.
(6) For the purposes of this section—
“applicant” means a person who makes an application for leave to enter under this section;
“claim for asylum” means a claim for leave to enter or remain as a refugee or as a person eligible for a grant of humanitarian protection;
“Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013” means Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council including the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast);
“relevant agreement” means an agreement negotiated by a Minister of the Crown, on behalf of the United Kingdom, with the European Union in accordance with which there is provision for the transfer of a person who has made an application for asylum in a Member State of the European Union to the United Kingdom which is no less extensive than Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 insofar as that regulation operated to enable the transfer of a person to join a child, sibling, parent or other family member or relative in the United Kingdom before exit day;
“relevant Member State” means a Member State for the purposes of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013;
“relevant provision” means any of the following articles of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013—
(a) Article 8;
(b) Article 9;
(c) Article 10;
(d) Article 16;
(e) Article 17.””
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in moving the amendment in my name, I shall comment on the Commons reason for rejecting an amendment from this House, which states:
“Because it would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.”
Given the time we spent on the issue and its importance, to say that the technicality of financial privilege is sufficient to dispose of it in the eyes of the Commons, I think falls short of being humanitarian and falls short of respecting the opinions of this House.
When I was in the Commons, there were some colleagues who made themselves experts on parliamentary procedure and were virtually walking Erskine Mays. I have no wish to follow them down that path, but I note the issue of financial privilege seems to occur only when the Government do not like something to do with child refugees. If I can take the House back to 2016, we passed an amendment to the then Immigration Bill; when it got to the Commons the Government used financial privilege as a technical reason, so when it came back to this House we changed the wording and eventually it passed again and the Government accepted it.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have not received any indication that any Member wishes to speak who is not listed. Does any noble Lord in the Chamber wish to speak at this point before I move on? In that case, I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support most strongly the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, which provides for refugee children to come to the UK from EU countries if they have family here with whom they can reunite.
The Government say they have proposals to deal with family reunion, but as the noble Lord has pointed out—I will not repeat his explanation—those proposals would not provide a secure route for child refugees to join their families here in the UK. Why is this country so much less willing than our neighbours in Europe to accept these vulnerable children? Germany stands out as the most generous and morally correct European country on this issue, having taken 71,000 children in 2019, but we do not even measure up to France, Greece or Spain—and two of those countries are a great deal less well off than we are.
It is important to note that local authorities, if adequately funded, are willing to welcome refugee children from Europe and, as my noble friend Lord Kerr pointed out on Report, the Government will have public support if they accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Surely the Government want some public support, do they not? They have enough problems on other issues at the moment. The British public understand the importance of refugee children being able to join their families, whatever the reason they became separated in the first place.
In her introductory remarks, the Minister referred to the costs of housing asylum seekers. Will she clarify that the Government would not have to fund the housing of unaccompanied children who come over here to live with their relatives? It is quite important that there is not that financial hit for the Government.
If the Government reject this amendment and children are not able to join their families under the Government’s proposals, many will inevitably resort to the traffickers and the rubber dinghies, with inevitable loss of life. Surely, it is only a matter of time before the Government are challenged under the Human Rights Act, in particular Article 8, on the right to respect for your family life. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to that point.
As the Minister will recognise, this amendment has huge cross-party support and public support across the country. I hope she can persuade her colleagues to accept it.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, at every stage, tributes have been paid to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—rightly so, but I imagine he must sometimes be shouting at his screen, while on mute, “Forget the tributes, just accept the amendment.”
The Commons reason is that leave to enter to make an asylum claim, and a strategy to ensure that an unaccompanied child can be relocated in the UK if it is in the child’s best interests, would be, in their words, as the noble Lord said, a “charge on public funds”. Like him, I appreciate that this is a standard response, but it in no way reflects the debate. They trust that we will regard it as sufficient; it is not a sufficient reason.
We were told that it would not be right to undermine negotiations with the EU, with which, it must be said, agreement on this issue shows no sign of life at all. Domestic legislation must be the least threat in this context. It is still not too late to do the right thing.
Our Immigration Rules are inadequate, and applications outside them rarely successful. The Government have announced that they are looking at safe and legal routes for those seeking sanctuary next year. We on these Benches will not subscribe to the notion that this is an issue for next year. The routes are unsafe now, and we could make them considerably safer. We support the amendment.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Currently, the only legal way to reach this country from the EU in order to claim asylum, including for unaccompanied children, is through the Dublin III regulation on family reunion. That route, as we know, will cease to be available at the end of the transition period in a few weeks’ time. The Government have no comparable proposals to replace Dublin III, since their alternative removes the mandatory requirement to facilitate family reunion, removes a child’s right to appeal against refusal and further narrows the definition of “family”, since a child or teenager would no longer be able to join, for example, an aunt, an older sister or someone who could look after them when they have been separated from their parents
Safe Passage, to which reference has already been made, which supports child refugees, has said, I believe, that more than 90% of the young people and children it has supported through the Dublin III legal pathway would be unlikely to qualify under the Government’s alternative system. The numbers involved are not large and are very small indeed compared with the numbers of those from outside the EU whom the Government, by choice, each year, have enabled to come to this country. Before the mandatory Dublin III provisions came into effect, about 10 or 11 children per year came to this country under the scheme. Since 2016, when it became mandatory, the average number of children per year has been just over 500.
We support the amendment in lieu, Amendment D1, moved by my indefatigable noble friend Lord Dubs, which represents the guaranteed continuation of a decent and humane approach, particularly to children and young people in real need, including in real need of a safe and legal route to safety.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who makes this plea so genuinely and passionately. I hope, at this late stage, he might consider withdrawing his amendment to the Motion when he hears what I am going to say. First of all, we do not just use financial privilege for child refugees. That is not the case at all, but I think he knows that. The wording—
“trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient”—
is standard parlance.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, in response to her question, that it is true that the state does not have to fund children who are living with relatives, although, of course, it is different for children who are living in local authority care. I go back to the point I made earlier, which is that the Home Secretary made it absolutely clear in her speech at the Conservative Party Conference that safe and legal routes are a core part of our proposed reforms to the asylum system to ensure it is both firm and fair. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that very thing today in his speech. I can confirm that, as an integral part of that work, the Government will conduct a review of safe and legal routes to the UK for asylum seekers, refugees and their families, which will include reviewing routes for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to reunite with their family members in the UK. As noble Lords will recollect, we intend to bring legislation next year that will deliver those reforms.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about bilateral negotiations. I understand noble Lords’ concerns about the risk of a non-negotiated outcome on asylum and illegal migration, and I can, today, make a commitment to the House that in the event of a non-negotiated outcome, this Government will pursue bilateral negotiations on post-transition migration issues with key countries with which we share a mutual interest. This will include new arrangements for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. I hope noble Lords listened carefully to what I have just said.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation and to other noble Lords who supported the amendment.
The Minister referred to the Home Secretary’s commitment that she wants safe and legal routes for family reunion of children. Of course, that is an aspiration, but it has to be made effective, and I am not convinced that anything the Government are doing will actually give effect to the Home Secretary’s commitment. The Minister also said that even after 31 December, the Government will continue to talk to achieve bilateral arrangements. That is well and good, but that is a long way ahead, and the Government have, in the past, given undertakings, and, frankly, nothing much has come of them.
This issue tests our humanity; it tests whether we are willing to do something now, not at some point in the future. It is a test of whether we are a decent, humanitarian country. We are talking about a small number of highly vulnerable people, the majority of whom are children who want to join family here. What could be more humanitarian or more in our traditions than allowing young people to join members of their family who are here and find safety down that path. I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 5 and Amendment 5B, tabled in lieu and proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, require a physical document to be offered to any EEA citizen who applies for it and who has been granted leave under the EU settlement scheme. The other place has rejected the previous amendment submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, as they considered it would incur significant costs. The amendment in lieu removes the provision prohibiting charging a fee for the physical document. However, this does not fully address our concerns about the cost of this proposal.
To allow the now nearly 4 million people who have been granted status under the EU settlement scheme to apply for physical documents, we would have to incur significant up-front costs. These costs would include setting up and designing the application process to issue a secure biometric document, some caseworking resource and significant communications costs; much of this cost would be incurred regardless of how many people applied for a physical document.
As we would not know how many people will apply, we would not be able to set an individual application fee that covered these costs without that being beyond the reach of most applicants. Much of the concern expressed in this House relates to the most vulnerable, and I really do not think we would want to pass on to them the costs of setting up this process. The cost of producing a biometric immigration document is about £75, but that fee does not cover the costs that would be incurred in setting up the process and communicating it. Therefore, being able to charge a fee does not in and of itself fully address the reasons given in the other place for rejecting the previous amendment.
We cannot accept the amendment, but that does not mean that the Government do not understand the concerns raised. We are committed to working with this House and with stakeholders to ensure that measures are in place to support those who may find the transition to digital services difficult. We will run a campaign to ensure that third parties understand how to check a person’s immigration status and the need not to discriminate when doing so. In some cases, the check will be directly with the Home Office, and we are confident that this system will reduce the scope for error and better ensure that people have access to the services they are entitled to.
The Government have clearly set out their ambition to move to a system which is digital by default. That will produce a better system for migrants and will make it easier for them to prove their status where all migrants, not just EEA citizens, will have online access to their immigration status. Other countries, such as Australia, have had a system like this in place for some time, so we know that it works.
This amendment is well intentioned, but it will have an adverse impact on our plans for modernisation and digitisation of our immigration system. These plans include the support services we need to provide to migrants for the future. It will also adversely impact employers and landlords, who would still need to conduct manual checks to authenticate a document and go through the process of photocopying it, signing and dating it and then filing it away in a cabinet.
The Government recognise that digital processes represent a major change for some people. However, as I have outlined in this House, we will provide a physical document in the form of a written notification of their permission to stay in the UK, which they can print off and store as a record. We will require EEA citizens to use the online system to prove their immigration status to employers and landlords only after 30 June 2021, to give them time to adjust, and we will continue to provide information and support to enable them to do so. Many thousands are already successfully using the service now to evidence their status in the UK, as I pointed out during the passage of this Bill.
I am aware that many noble Lords are worried about the impact of digital by default on the elderly and the vulnerable, but I reassure them that we are taking steps to ensure that those individuals are not disadvantaged by the move to digital services, particularly in accessing public services. System-to-system checks with other government departments and the NHS will mean service providers, such as healthcare and benefits, will check status directly with the Home Office at the point at which the person seeks to access them. This will reduce the number of occasions where individuals need to prove their rights, where such information can be made available directly to the service provider on their behalf.
In moving to a digital system, we recognise that there are people who cannot access online services and will need additional support. We are committed to delivering a service that reflects the diverse needs of all users. Help on how to use the online service and share status information is already available through our telephone contact centre, and we provide a free-to-use assisted digital service where those applying to the EU settlement scheme, or others making online applications in the UK, are able to get support. We continue to improve the support services to ensure that they are inclusive and available to all who need them, and we would welcome continued discussions on what additional support we would need to provide to address the concerns that many noble Lords have raised.
We want a robust and secure system that is efficient as well as convenient. Migrants will be able to access details of their immigration status online at any time and from anywhere, with a variety of devices, such as a smartphone or laptop. The Government want a better immigration system, and we believe that the move to a digital service is an important part of that. The amendment would prevent our moving in that direction and would require significant expenditure, which would be better used in supporting those using the services. I hope noble Lords will not insist on this amendment. I beg to move.
Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)
“EU Settlement Scheme: physical documented proof
The Secretary of State must issue physical proof confirming pre-settled status or settled status to all EEA and Swiss nationals and their families who have been granted such status under the EU Settlement Scheme and who request such proof.””
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, in moving Motion E1, which includes Amendment 5B, I give notice of my intention to test the opinion of the House, unless the Government are willing to change their position on this issue. I express my thanks to all noble Lords on all sides of the House who have so steadfastly and consistently supported this cause, in particular the original signatories to the amendment: the noble Lords, Lord Polak, Lord Kerslake and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride.
We have discussed this issue frequently over a number of years, but it appears that the Government have not been listening. Either that or perhaps I have not been listening properly, because I am still at a loss to understand the arguments that they have put forward to justify their decision to deny EEA nationals alone, among all the people residing in the United Kingdom, physical proof of their right to do so.
This issue, as we have said before, has no partisan flavour. It has been supported by Peers across the House of all parties and of none, commanding one of the largest majorities in your Lordships’ House of any amendment on this Bill. It involves no Brexit arguments; it may be happily supported by any Member, whatever their position on those past arguments. It is, quite simply, the right thing to do to alleviate the anxieties and hardship that will otherwise be visited on millions of people who have made their home with us in the United Kingdom.
In Committee, the Government appeared to advance three principal arguments against our amendment: that a system with both digital proof and physical proof would be confusing; that a digital proof is better than a physical proof because a digital proof cannot be lost; and, lastly, that the Government intend to move to a digital-by-default system in future and therefore that it makes sense for the new settled status scheme to adopt a digital-only model from the outset.
On Report, a new argument was raised—or at least advanced more vigorously—and that was of cost. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government, in rejecting our amendment, have claimed financial privilege, advancing no other argument against it. Therefore, to address the issue of financial privilege and to tackle the Government’s concerns over cost, we have removed the requirement that physical proof must be provided free of charge, which was in the original amendment. It should be noted, therefore, that this amendment in lieu requires only that the Government offer physical proof of status to those who request it; that it allows the Exchequer to charge for such a document; and that the charge is permitted under the terms of the withdrawal agreement.
The Minister told us on Report that if 89% of those with settled status sought a physical document, it would cost £100 million—I think that was at col. 472 —which, by my calculation, would mean, in order to cover costs, a charge of £28.09. I therefore question the Minister’s statement just now that the cost would be £75, and I wonder how she marries that up with the figure she gave us before. Perhaps she will say, “We would have to take into account the setting up of a whole new process”—but I do not understand that. There is a process for issuing biometric residence permits, so there is no need to set up a new process. Indeed, non-EEA citizens who are granted settled status via their spousal relationship are given biometric residence permits—so I do not understand that at all.
I would much prefer that there was no charge for a physical document—not least because our citizens abroad are being issued physical proof of status without charge, as I understand it. Nevertheless, if this is the only way that EEA citizens who have made their homes here can be given the surety and confidence that they seek, I suspect that they would probably regard the fee of £28.09 as money well spent. I hope, therefore, that this addresses the issue of costs and privilege.
As to the response to the Government’s other arguments, I shall try to be brief, both because they have already been well rehearsed in this House and because even the Government do not seem to have the heart to argue them convincingly. First, on the argument that it would be confusing to people to operate a digital system as well as physical proof of status, it remains unclear to me why the Government make this claim. It is exactly the system that exists for non-EEA citizens with indefinite leave to remain, who can access a digital proof of status and can apply for a physical document. Landlords, employers and others who are expected to check for immigration status already operate under such a system, so I fail to understand who the Government think will be confused. What is likely to be confusing, therefore, is not the presence of a physical document but its absence.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
Five Members have indicated that they wish to speak at this point: the noble Lord, Lord Polak, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I call the first of those speakers, the noble Lord, Lord Polak.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I have no intention of delaying the House as I have made my views on this pretty clear. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, has been very clear and precise. I believe that the Government are sticking their heels in for no good reason.
I should make it known that this morning there was a power outage at the police national computer centre in Hendon—run, of course, by the Home Office. As a result, police forces across the country were not able to access the police national computer. I do not need to explain to noble Lords that power outages of this sort have a serious effect on police operations. Following the technical issue that affected our voting on 30 September and this issue today, surely those EU citizens who request physical proof should be able to receive it like any other citizen.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, tabled the amendment in lieu to deal with the cost element that the Minister brought up on Report. I agree with him, because non-EEA citizens now receive physical proof, so I really fail to understand what the up-front costs that the Minister referred to are. It is an existing scheme. EU citizens deserve to be treated equally and the amendment deserves to be accepted. This is a matter not of policy, but of process. Non-EU citizens can obtain physical proof of settled status, so EU citizens will be the only group without that physical proof. I fail to understand why the Government are unable to accept the compromise amendment that now deals with the financial question.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Oates’s excellent speech, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, with whom I worked on the EU Justice Sub-Committee. The Minister referred to people being able to use their smartphones for this purpose. A friend of mine could not open the link in the email she received confirming her settled status. She had to go to an internet café to do so. I am not quite sure what went wrong there.
I will refer to a report published yesterday by the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union in the other place called Implementing the Withdrawal Agreement: Citizens’ Rights. I do not know whether the Minister has had a chance to look at it, but it backs the amendment so that EU citizens should have
“the option of … a physical document to evidence their residency status … in addition to their digital status.”
I am very pleased indeed that it has given that support. It refers to a number of reasons why this should be accepted. It talks about
“examples of people getting assistance from unregulated immigration advisers to make their application, then the third party retain the log-in details necessary to access the platform”
and make a
“charge to send on details to employers.”
I hope that is something the Home Office might look into.
The committee also talks about how, because the online product
“remains linked to the physical document, such as a passport, used by the individual in their application … If the passport is changed, then the applicant has to update the online system.”
That is an issue that will recur. The committee also says that
“accessing the online profile is not straightforward for people not fluent in IT”—
something we have discussed a lot on this subject—so they
“end up relying on the pdf document they receive informing them that a status has been granted”.
The Minister referred to that being put in the desk drawer. It is, of course,
“not a substitute for actual evidence of status”,
but unfortunately it might be used by some people who are confused by the online environment, which is a recipe for some difficulty.
Then, of course, the person asking the EU citizen to demonstrate their status has to understand it. The Minister referred to support for the holders of settled status. I am not sure whether she plans to give lots of tuition to prospective landlords, employers and so on. She talked about the NHS. It was not quite clear what that system will be. The Public Law Project has listed nine steps that a third party such as an employer would have to take to check the status of an EU citizen. It is worth quickly mentioning them:
“Request the code from the applicant … Wait for an email with a link to arrive … Open and read the email … Search, identify, and open the correct website”,
because apparently there is no link in the email,
“Start the checking process … Enter the share code from the email … Enter the applicant’s date of birth … Enter their company name”—
I am not sure what happens for an individual landlord—and, lastly,
“Check that the photo on their screen looks like the person applying for the job and keep a secure copy of the online check, either electronically or in hard copy.”
All this requires reliable access to the internet. If you do not have access to wi-fi, which you might not in an empty flat that you are showing it to a prospective tenant, a person would have to rely on mobile signal, which is honestly not great, even in London.
Also, the committee’s report says that apparently
“the lack of a physical document has contributed to the confusion over eligibility for benefits, because claimants have been unable to show a photo ID card showing their status … it was unclear how some decisions have been made by the DWP in terms of using settled status as a proof of eligibility.”
It is quite a serious point that even the DWP does not seem to have got this right.
The report says that
“the option of a physical card would give an additional layer of safety against criminal attempts to ‘hijack’ someone’s status.”
We are being warned all the time about cybersecurity, and the dangers of malware, hacking and so on. The report says that, in a recent survey of 3,000 EU citizens, apparently more than 10% had been asked
“to provide proof of settled status, and that the digital only status was deterring some from applying.”
It was actually putting them off. The report continues,
“physical proof came right at the top of concerns of EU citizens: 89% said that they would like an option, not compulsory, of physical proof.”
Having gone through all that evidence, it is hardly any wonder that the committee in the other place backed this sincere, reasoned request for EU citizens to have the option of a physical document. I know the noble Baroness cares about people and people’s lives, but it really seems the Government ought to find a way to accede to this request.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, here we go again on this one. I have not been persuaded any more by my noble friend—whom I hold in very high regard—this evening. She regurgitated the brief from last time, with a few little gildings, and did not convince me at all.
We are dealing with EU citizens. As my noble friend Lord Polak said very forcefully, they are being discriminated against in comparison with other foreign citizens resident in this country. This amendment asks for an option. If there was a weak point in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, in the previous debate and a strong one from my noble friend on the Front Bench, it was over the issue of cost. The noble Lord has dropped that, and he is wise to do so. Frankly, people who want this physical proof will, I am sure, be glad to pay for it, whether it is £28 or, to take my noble friend’s figure, £75. There are ways and means of ensuring that those who cannot afford £75 are able to do it.
We must not stumble on this particularly weak, faulty argument of the Government. I say “of the Government” because I like to think that my noble friend the Minister, who is held in genuine high regard in this House, is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said a few moments ago, a woman who has demonstrated that she does care. She has not been given a kind brief. She is acting as a mouthpiece for a government department that does not have a history of great humanity.
Windrush was mentioned. If many of those people who suffered as a result of maladministration—and that is what it was—had had this sort of physical proof, we would not have gone through those agonising moments, and months, and years. This is common sense.
As far as the fallibility of the technology is concerned, my noble friend Lord Polak gave an up-to-the-minute example. We have heard many examples in your Lordships’ House since our last debate. One day last week, we had to adjourn for albeit not a long period, because the system had malfunctioned in some way.
We also must bear in mind that many of those about whom we are talking are of the generation that many of us in this House belong to. We are behaving in a rather arrogant way towards people who are not used to these systems. It is not a crime to be not particularly technological; if it were, I should be locked up for life. One sees the same sort of arrogance creeping in with those who say that we should have no more cash or cheques with which to pay our bills. We need to recognise that the whole of our society should be treated in a fair and equal way. What is being suggested this evening by the Government is that they should not be treated in a fair and equal way.
I appeal to my noble friend, who cannot—and does not, I know—believe in discrimination and who believes in fairness and equity, to do as I urged her to do last time: for goodness’ sake, tear up the brief and accept the argument. I know that these things are formulaic—I sat in the other place for 40 years—but the only reason the Government can dredge up is cost. Well, we have dealt with that one through the revised amendment.
Let us move forward. I will certainly vote for the revised amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, as I voted for his last one. I hope that I will not need to; I hope that none of us will need to. I hope that, if we do need to and it goes back to the other place, the other place will have the guts and the gumption to realise that we are not driving a coach and horses through any party-political policy and that we are not doing anything against the Government because they are a Conservative Government—a slightly odd one, but that is another matter. We are making a plea for people who, in many cases, are extremely vulnerable; who have made a real contribution to our society; who have lived in our country and made it their own in many ways; who love the place and who have served it, many of them with great distinction.
Please, let us be sensible. Let the Government be sensible. If it is necessary, let us give the noble Lord, Lord Oates, another thumping majority tonight.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, there are three strong arguments that support my noble friend the Minister’s position and the Government’s decision to seek to reverse the Lords amendment.
The first is the cost, which, as we heard on Report, might be more than £100 million. I know that £100 million seems like tuppence ha’penny after discussions about Covid but it is a very large sum. The movers have brought the cost down by proposing a charge, which the Minister says will be £75 on that basis. We must accept the Government’s figure; I know that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, argued that the cost is less but I am sad to say that, in my experience, government estimates are usually under-estimates rather than the reverse.
The second argument—this is the one that I feel most strongly about—is that there is always a risk of error and enhanced fraud with two versions of the truth, with one online version and one paper version. I do not think that that issue has been addressed properly in our debates.
The third argument, which this House may not like, is that digital is the way of the future; in my experience, everyone emphasises that unless they are pleading for a special case. In the words of my noble friend the Minister, digital by default is what we need because it gives access from anywhere from lots of different digital devices. It is precedented: as we have heard, digital ID has been used in Australia. Moreover, none of us worry about US ESTAs, which have the merit of providing one version of the truth. My noble friend also committed the Government to giving extra support to those who need help coping with the system; I am sure that DWP will also help.
I am afraid that I must disagree with the other noble Lords who have spoken. We should look forward, not back, and reject this proposal.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am tempted to support this amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, as we both approach the anniversary of our entry into this House, five years ago. I urge my noble friend the Minister to keep an open mind on this amendment and to agree to it.
As I reminded my noble friend, in 2014-15, the Government—at that time, it was the Defra department —tried to introduce a digital-only farm payments scheme. It was scrapped because it simply could not be delivered and the department reverted to paper-only applications. I remind the House that many of the applicants will live in rural areas—they will not all live in inner-city areas and major towns—where broadband is woeful. Many existing not-spots do not have the capability to carry this scheme. The Government acknowledged this recently and are backing down from their commitment to universal coverage by 2025, so they recognise the limitations of their digital by default-only policy.
I remind the House that on 16 October, the National Audit Office reported that broadband users in rural areas are being left behind in major network upgrades. The Home Office should recognise that there is not universal coverage of the broadband and internet technology that will be required to deliver the digital service by default. While I have the greatest regard for both my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and the Minister, we have to accept that some 5% of people are living in the hardest-to-reach areas. In my view, this digital-by-default policy is being driven by an unelected adviser whose respect for the rules and the law is less than exemplary, and I think that he should join the real world with regard to some of the policies being brought forward.
The other difficulty I have with this policy is a very real one. I remind the House that my mother became a naturalised Brit, having come over to Britain from Denmark via Germany in 1948. What grieves me most about the policy that we will end up with without the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, is that most of the applicants do not have English as their first language; it is not their mother tongue. In the words of my noble friend Lord Cormack, why are we seeking to discriminate against people in this way? I therefore urge my noble friend to show the big heart and affection that she has for these people and make sure either that we adopt the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, in lieu of his earlier amendment for the reasons he has given, or that the Government should come forward with an amendment of their own. Digital by default in these circumstances is not going to work.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I know that almost everyone in the Chamber has spoken to the Motion, but I have to ask whether anyone else wishes to contribute at this point. Silence being the case, I shall move on to the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Oates. He has removed the only apparent government objection to his original amendment —that no fee could be charged—and, in her opening remarks, the Minister produced a few rather more minor costs. However, he undermined that argument, so perhaps she can clarify that point in her summing up.
As I understand it, this amendment will do no more than bring EEA nationals into line with all other immigrants residing in the UK. The Government have argued in relation to many amendments to this Bill that they are determined to treat EEA nationals in exactly the same way as other people who are resident in this country. Surely the Minister cannot then argue in relation to this amendment that EEA nationals should be treated differently when compared with immigrants from other countries. If she does not accept this amendment, can she explain this apparent inconsistency of approach?
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, has cogently set out the case for this amendment and his arguments need no repetition. For me, the two most powerful are first, that, as others have mentioned, IT system failures and technical faults are all too frequent, while the second is that large numbers of people have limited IT skills. The Minister responded to that point by saying, “That will not be a problem because there will be department-to-department communication.” Let us suppose that someone goes to a doctor needing medical help, but the Home Office system has gone down or some other technical problem has arisen; the doctor cannot treat them. I do not think that it is good enough to say, “Oh, do not worry, it will all be fine on the night.”
Just imagine, as an example, that we no longer had physical passports, merely an entry online to prove our UK citizenship. We could arrive at an airport and not be entirely confident that our details would be found to enable us to board an aircraft. How many of us would be comfortable with that? I certainly would not be. I wonder, when the Government talk about these things, whether they are actually planning to abandon physical passports, because that would be the logic of this situation. I will support this amendment if it is put to the vote.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is rare for a campaign to take off in the way that the call for physical proof has done. The Government have made their arguments over a number of stages and those who have been calling for this have not been satisfied—they certainly have been following what is going on. I regret that the Minister in the Commons did not address the issue but, apart from the standard financial privilege response, said that the issue had been debated many times. Yes, it has, but no one seems to have changed their position.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we may all have different views of this Government. While some might think that they are useless and incompetent, others might take a different view. However, I think that we would all agree that they certainly make many strange decisions—often ludicrous, inconsistent, contradictory and largely disappointing. This is one example. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, a consistent argument has been made about this issue, but the Government are just not listening. That is much to be regretted on the part of the Government because they should have given way on this point, but it is quite clear that they are not going to do so. I do not know if that is down to unelected advisers, the Home Secretary, or the general attitude of the Government as a whole. However, it is clear that they are not going to give way and that is most disappointing. For that reason, we are not going to support sending this issue back to the other place again because I do not think that the Government will change their position.
However, I have a few other comments to make. A few days ago, we had a debate about the costs to enable British children in care to get their British citizenship. The Government were happy to charge over £1,000; there was no issue about that at all. That is many hundreds of pounds more than the cost, so apparently there is no issue there at all. Here, of course, the Government have raised the issue of cost, saying that they are not sure and that it could be too much for people. I have equally made the point by asking for years why we cannot stop council tax payers having to subsidise planning applications. But no, the Government say that we have to continue letting those taxpayers subsidise such applications. That is completely ludicrous, contradictory and inconsistent, but that is what we have before us again today.
In all of these debates, I have never had an answer to this question. The point is made about how we cannot have certificates because they are not needed, everything is now digital, and we should not be worried about it. Yet, at the same time, we are handing out certificates to people who become British citizens. This is done in ceremonies in town halls up and down the country. You have to hand them out, they are signed by the Home Secretary of the day, and you tell the person that the certificate is really important. You hand it to them, a photograph is taken, and off they go with a document that at the moment is signed by Priti Patel. I have handed out hundreds of these things over the years, but I do not believe that those certificates are biometric. I think that they are a piece of paper. I might be wrong about that; perhaps they are biometric now and I do not know. Again, this is from the same department, so it is inconsistent and completely ludicrous. It is a real shame that the Government have not listened and that they are not going to do so. I think that that is much to the regret and shame of the Government.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, who moved it.
One of the first areas of disagreement that he raised was on costs. We have used published costs for enrolling biometrics and issuing a BRP, which are £19.20 and £56 respectively. They cover only the casework in the applications and not the significant set-up costs. There are costs of issuing and replacement, and one-off costs of upgrading pre-settled status cards. There is a cost of communication of the change and, of course, of facial technology.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, suggested that the system should be trialled. The fact is that people are using it now. It is not going live on 1 January; people are already using it to prove status. That is proof of the success of the “trial”, as he puts it. Surely the fact that 4 million applications have already been made suggests that the system is working. This takes me to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, regarding the difficulties of the system. I have seen how the application process works. It is very easy; I have suggested previously in this place that noble Lords take time to look at just how easy it is to set up.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, also stated his dismay that the PSED has not been published. I do not have any update on my previous statement that we intend to publish it.
On discrimination, the BNO route will be launched in January. Applicants will receive digital status using the technology based on the EU settlement scheme. People receiving that status will be required to use it from January, so the system relates not just to people from EU member states but to our BNO friends who we expect to come here from then. The system is therefore not discriminatory in the sense that our BNO friends will use it from January as well.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is absolutely right: although it might not be the way forward for older people, digital by default is the way forward. It is completely retrograde to talk about physical documents when in fact, to date, the system appears to be working well. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, talked about physical documents being less open to abuse. They are more open to abuse and far easier to forge than a digital status that an employer or landlord can access.
Finally, regarding a power outage at the PNC, I should tell my noble friend Lord Polack that our back-up systems are very robust, as I have previously explained.
I do not think that I will convince some noble Lords—indeed, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, intends to divide the House—but it is a retrograde step to talk about returning to physical documents. I remember my noble friend, joined by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talking about the importance of physical identity, which we fully intend to take forward. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, will withdraw his amendment but I do not think that he will.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her response. I do not understand the issue with set-up costs; a system exists. I also do not understand the point about casework costs for people who already have settled status.
All the arguments have been aired extensively. I very much regret that the Labour Front Bench is unable to come with us, not least because of the strong arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for exactly my position. However, I hope that, despite the view of the Front Bench, my friends on the Labour Benches will support us, just as my friends on the Conservative Benches will do. I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for their support and I appeal for their support again. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 8A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, this Government are committed to tackling the heinous crime of modern slavery, which has no place in our society. We are now identifying more victims of modern slavery and doing more to bring perpetrators to justice than ever before, and we are committed to supporting victims and helping them to rebuild their lives.
Lords Amendment 9, tabled by my noble friend Lord McColl, would require arrangements to be made in the Immigration Rules for the grant of leave to remain for confirmed victims of modern slavery who are EEA citizens in specified circumstances. I am therefore pleased to see that he has tabled Amendment 9B in lieu, which reiterates the Government’s commitment to him in this area.
The original Amendment 9 is unnecessary and should not be insisted upon for the following reasons. Currently, confirmed victims of modern slavery who are foreign nationals from non-EEA countries and who do not already have immigration status are automatically considered for discretionary leave to remain. By “automatic”, I mean that they do not need to apply for it. Our national referral mechanism arranges for that consideration after a decision has been reached that there are conclusive grounds to believe they are a victim of modern slavery. EEA citizens are currently not automatically considered in this way.
However, in line with assurances given in the other place, following the end of free movement, EEA confirmed victims who do not already have permission to stay in the UK, for example through our EU settlement scheme, will be treated in the same way as other foreign national victims and therefore receive automatic consideration for a grant of discretionary leave. The published policy will be amended to make this clear.
The published policy already provides for a grant of leave in cases where the victim is supporting the police in an investigation; is to be a witness in court; is pursuing compensation for the exploitation that they have suffered; requires medical treatment that needs to be provided in the UK; or because there is a risk they may be retrafficked if they are required to return to their country of origin. This is substantially the same as the qualifying criteria set out in the original amendment.
I hope that, in the light of the assurances I have given, the House will agree that Amendment 9 and Amendment 9B in lieu should not be insisted on. There are further issues to take forward about how we can best identify and support victims of modern slavery and I have undertaken to discuss these matters in further detail with the noble Lord, Lord McColl. However, it is important that, for immigration purposes, EEA victims are treated in the same way as other victims from abroad once free movement ends. I beg to move.
Motion J1 (as an amendment to Motion J)
“Consideration of discretionary leave to remain for confirmed adult victims of modern slavery who are EEA nationals
(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that a person aged 18 years or over is automatically considered for discretionary leave to remain when—
(a) the person is either a Swiss national or an EEA national who is not also an Irish Citizen; and
(b) there has been a conclusive determination that the person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking.
(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that persons granted leave to remain in accordance with this section have recourse to public funds for the duration of the period of leave.
(3) The Secretary of State must ensure that the person is considered for the grant of leave to remain immediately once a conclusive determination is made that they are a victim of slavery or human trafficking.
(4) In this section—
“competent authority” means a person who is a competent authority of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings;
“conclusive determination” means a determination that a person is, or is not, a victim of slavery or human trafficking when the identification process conducted by a competent authority concludes that the person is, or is not, such a victim;
“EEA national” means a national of a State which is a contracting party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area signed at
Oporto on 2 May 1992 (as it has effect from time to time);
“victim of slavery” and “victim of human trafficking” mean a person falling within the definition of a “victim of slavery” or “victim of human trafficking” in section 56 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (section 56: interpretation).””
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, I should make it clear from the outset that I will not be pressing the amendment in lieu to a vote. I am very grateful to the clerks who have advised me through the intricacies of ping-pong procedure, enabling me to speak today to thank those noble Lords who supported my amendment on 6 October, and to put on the record my response to events in another place on Monday and various undertakings that have been given by the Government.
I have decided not to move a Motion today to insist that what was Clause 12 be reinstated into the Bill for two reasons. In the first instance, I am very grateful for the Minister’s assurance that the Government will amend the guidance on discretionary leave to remain for victims of modern slavery to make it clear that, from 1 January, all confirmed victims who are EEA nationals should be automatically considered for DLR. This is very welcome. While it will not address the fact that many non-EEA confirmed victims of modern slavery will be able to access additional recovery routes, including asylum and humanitarian protection, it means that, as far as DLR is concerned, EEA and non-EEA confirmed victims of modern slavery will be treated in the same way. I thank the Government for this clear commitment.
My amendment in lieu effectively demonstrates what the Government have committed to doing in relation to automatic consideration and, for this reason, I will not be pressing it to a Division. I very much hope that, under this new arrangement, the Government will publish statistics on the immigration outcomes for all confirmed victims of modern slavery following their automatic assessment for DLR. I also welcome the assurance of the Minister in the other place that being a confirmed victim of modern slavery will be considered an acceptable reason for late application for settled status; that again is very positive.
The second reason I have decided not to move an amendment to reinstate Clause 12 is that the Government have agreed to a series of meetings with the right honourable Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, and me on our Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill to work through the issues with the objective of trying to identify common ground around victim support. I particularly welcome this.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, I have received no notice of unlisted speakers. Does anyone in the Chamber wish to speak? No. In that case, I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and hope that she has been unmuted.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
This stage does not need a long speech, so I will say only that I understand why the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is not pursuing matters today. I know that he will continue to press for all the things his Bill covers with regard to victims of trafficking and exploitation, and no doubt many other things as well. Of course, we support him. We, too, are concerned about this dreadful crime and the importance of supporting all those who have been victims of it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I was pleased to hear that the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, has received assurances. I am particularly pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, has given him assurances regarding what she will do to help progress this, and it was also good to hear that he has accepted them.
We all know that the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, is highly respected, not only by me but by the whole House. He is a wonderful Member of this House, both in his previous professional career as a surgeon and in his work on the Mercy Ships. While I have been in this House for the past 10 years, he has consistently campaigned on violence against women and violence against people in general and on modern slavery. As I have said before, it is high time that the Government agreed with the noble Lord and moved things forward. The noble Lord’s Bill, which he referred to, which he and Iain Duncan Smith are promoting in the other place, is reasonable, sensible and practical, and the Government should be proud to support it. I hope that, in the not too distant future, we will see the Government give active support to the Bill because, sadly, it has left this House twice only to be wrecked in the other place by a group of people who seemed to get pleasure out of wrecking good Private Members’ Bills, so I hope that will stop and that we will get the Bill through. In his Private Member’s Bill he asks only that people are treated with dignity and respect and that if you are accepted as a victim of modern slavery in England and Wales, you should be treated exactly the same as you are treated in Northern Ireland and in Scotland, because their legislation is superior to ours, and we want it all the same.
I am therefore delighted that there will be a discussion and that the Minister and the noble Lord will be involved in that, and I hope that we will have some good news in the weeks and months ahead.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
I thank everyone for their support, and I particularly thank the Minister, who is a real star and who has been so helpful in this whole business. Without further ado, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 10A.
Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill
Wednesday 21st October 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Act 2021 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text