House of Commons
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
We have worked with the sector on the steps it needed to take following the transition period. This included questions around participation in European Union programmes, migration and student support arrangements. We are replacing the European social fund via the UK shared prosperity fund and introducing the new Turing scheme.
Patricia Gibson [V]
Before Brexit, EU students contributed £1.2 billion to the UK economy annually, boosting the profile of UK universities globally and helping to support the pipeline of talented science, technology, engineering and mathematics graduates and medical graduates. With the reality of excessively high international student fees, many EU students will choose to study elsewhere, so how will the Secretary of State ensure that the Turing scheme, a poor replacement for Erasmus, is as effective in encouraging inward student mobility?
Gavin Williamson
The Turing scheme is not a poor replacement, but a brilliant replacement for Erasmus. It is about us looking around the globe as to how we can expand opportunities for students. Yes, there are many, many brilliant higher education student institutes right across Europe, but there are so many more right across the world, whether in the United States or Canada, whether in India or China or whether in Australia and so many other places. That is what we are going to be giving young people the opportunity to release, and they will have the opportunity to go and study there as well.
David Linden [V]
Under the Horizon 2020 programme, the UK consistently received more money out than it put in. Under the terms of this agreement, the UK is set to receive no more than it contributes. While universities in Scotland were relieved to see a commitment to Horizon Europe in the joint agreement, what additional funding will the Secretary of State make available to ensure that our overall level of research funding is maintained?
Gavin Williamson
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government have been very clear in our commitment to research. The Prime Minister has stated time and time again that our investment in research is absolutely there, ensuring that we deliver Britain as a global scientific superpower. That is why more money has been going into research, and universities will continue to play an incredibly important role in that, but as he will be aware, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy manages the research element that goes into the funding of universities.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
The anxiety caused by the lack of answers on the impact of the end of transition upon students is only adding to the anxiety that they already feel because of the impact that covid-19 has had on their educational experience, their finances and their graduate job prospects, which is all made worse by the fact that students do not feel that their voice is being heard by Government. Perhaps the greatest injustice of them all, they feel, is being made to pay rent for accommodation that the Secretary of State has mandated they should not use. What is he going to do to right this wrong?
Gavin Williamson
As the hon. Lady will know, before Christmas we set out plans to support youngsters who were going to be facing the greatest hardship. We continue to keep this under review, and we will continue to work with the sector to provide the best support to students up and down the land.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
Teachers and leaders are working incredibly hard, making tremendous efforts to provide and to improve their high- quality remote education. We have set clear strengthened expectations for schools and further education providers, and our “Get help with remote education” page on gov.uk provides a range of support, training and good practice for schools and parents to look at.
Danny Kruger [V]
All schools are under huge pressure, delivering teaching both in class and online at the same time, and many are doing an absolutely fantastic job. However, some parents are naturally worried that their children are not getting as much direct live teaching as pupils at other schools they have heard about, and they have a right to understand why. Does my right hon. Friend agree that parents should challenge their school directly and discuss their concerns with the head of the governing body and that making a complaint to Ofsted, as Ministers have suggested they do, should only be the last resort?
Gavin Williamson
Absolutely. We have always been clear—and I stated this to the House just a couple of weeks ago—that we encourage parents, in the first instance, to speak with a teacher or headteacher, and only as a last resort to go to Ofsted. We want to see and encourage as much live teaching as possible, which is shown to be the best way of delivering teaching, but a whole spectrum of resources can be offered. It is really important to work with schools, with parents supporting those schools, to ensure that we get the best solutions for all our children.
Jerome Mayhew [V]
I know from my experience with my own children that having live lessons taught online is much more effective than simply placing learning resources online. With more than 750,000 laptops already delivered and 2.9 million laptops already available in schools for the use of children, the digital divide has been substantially overcome. With that in mind, can my right hon. Friend give an indication of the percentage of schools providing live teaching online? Does he have plans to increase that further?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the great strides that have been made in supporting schools, and in schools supporting parents, on the provision of remote education. We obviously encourage schools to put on as much live provision as possible, which is very beneficial, and we are working with the whole school and further education sector to support them with that request. We are seeing substantial gains, and we are monitoring the situation closely, as is Ofsted.
Tom Hunt
I thank all the teachers in Ipswich, many of whom are balancing still teaching some kids physically and teaching some remotely. On the theme of live learning, does the Secretary of State consider the impact on those with special educational needs? For them, live lessons are particularly important, especially if they have speech and language difficulties, because live engagement gives them the opportunity to question and is very valuable. Live lessons can also be hugely beneficial for the mental health of many pupils, because even if it is just a couple of hours a day, they have that live engagement, and they see other pupils and their teacher.
Gavin Williamson
As always, my hon. Friend hits the nail on the head: it is so important to ensure that we get the right balance for young people, especially those with special educational needs. That is why we took the decision to ensure that children who have an education, health and care plan are able to go into school, as part of the category of vulnerable children who may need extra face-to-face support from their teachers.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The fact is that up to 1.8 million children in this country do not have access to a device at home, and more than 800,000 do not have access to the internet needed. Even with the laptops that the Secretary of State has already provided and those he intends to provide, the provision of devices and dongles falls well short. Why is the Secretary of State willing to accept standards for other people’s children that he would never accept for his own, and why is it that, once again, the incompetence of his Department has left children across the country seriously disadvantaged?
Gavin Williamson
At every stage, we on the Government Benches—and, I am sure, those on the Opposition Benches—want to deliver the very best for every single child, wherever they live and whatever background they come from. The hon. Gentleman may want to play politics over children’s lives, but we are focused on delivering for those children. That is why, on top of the stock of 2.9 million laptops and tablets that are already out there, we took the decision to invest £400 million in purchasing and distributing an additional 1.3 million devices, making a total of 4.2 million devices in the school system.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
Of course, a laptop or a device is really just a glorified typewriter if you cannot access the internet. We know that nearly 1 million youngsters in the UK are in that situation. Given that BT’s offer of free internet access was rejected by the Secretary of State, how does he plan to help such children to access the internet for remote education?
Gavin Williamson
At every stage, we work with many companies, including EE, Three and BT, to ensure that we maximise the amount of data that is available for those children who are most vulnerable. The hon. Lady will be pleased that many children in Scotland are able to benefit from the work we have been doing with those providers. I imagine that she will be keen to pass on her thanks and appreciation for that work, which has been undertaken to the benefit of all children in the United Kingdom.
Carol Monaghan
Of course, I welcome the support that these internet companies have provided; I only wish the Secretary of State would take his responsibility in this area more seriously, and had moved more quickly. The success of remote learning is not just about the right equipment. It is also about youngsters’ readiness to learn, and that includes whether or not they have eaten. The Scottish Government are ensuring that no child is left hungry during remote learning by ensuring either a cash-first response or vouchers, depending on the preference of the family. Having seen the meagre offerings in these free school meals from some private providers in England, will the UK Government make a similar commitment, and provide either cash or voucher support to the families who are entitled to free school meals?
Gavin Williamson
As the hon. Lady is probably aware, we have opened up the national voucher scheme to all schools in England. We give those schools the option of providing food parcels or locally procured vouchers, or of making use of the national voucher scheme. This is a broad range of options for schools, enabling them to ensure that all children are fed, which I believe is both her priority and mine.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
The Department for Education’s own pre-pandemic study found that pupils’ wellbeing predicted their later academic progression. Children with better mental health and wellbeing at age seven had a value-added key stage 2 score 2.46 points higher—equivalent to more than one term’s progress—than pupils with poorer wellbeing and mental health. While schools are closed and children are remote learning, mental health worries for millions of children have rocketed, as highlighted by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and others. Will my right hon Friend work with charities such as Place2Be to put mental health councillors in all schools now, so that children can access support whenever they need it and their attainment levels will not suffer even further?
Gavin Williamson
I know that my right hon. Friend speaks for many in the House who have particular concerns about children’s mental health, and about making sure that, as we work through this pandemic, this is not something that is forgotten and on which no action is taken. We have already undertaken work on helping schools to train staff to support not just pupils, but staff. I would be very happy to sit down with my right hon. Friend to discuss the work that many charities and voluntary organisations undertake, and how they can properly and fully support all children and all those who work in the education sector when it comes to their mental health.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
We have given unprecedented support to early years throughout the pandemic, through block-buying childcare places, and through the furlough and other schemes. We are monitoring the situation very closely, and are keeping under constant review whether further action is needed. To support providers further, we have issued additional advice to make it clear that children who are temporarily absent from nurseries can be counted in this week’s census, even if they are ill or if their parents are worried about covid.
Stephen Morgan [V]
Nurseries and childcare providers in deprived areas are most likely to close, which is catastrophic for disadvantaged children. Coronavirus presents a significant threat to early years providers in Portsmouth, with many already struggling financially. What action will the Minister take to ensure we do not lose essential childcare places in less well-off communities as a result of the pandemic?
Vicky Ford
As I have said, we have given unprecedented support to the early years sector. It does an amazing job, and we are keeping the question of whether any further action is needed under constant review. The advice that we gave last week is really important, because this week is the annual census week, and it is really important that those providers know that they can count children who are temporarily absent, provided they remain open for them. That is really important advice to our early years providers.
Kate Osborne [V]
With so many staff in early years settings having to isolate, it is becoming increasingly difficult to open the maintained nursery schools in my constituency, as they do not have surplus staff to rely on. What funding will be made available to mitigate that, so that support staff can be employed to cover staff who are shielding or self-isolating?
Vicky Ford
We are taking two actions urgently to support our early years. The first is the roll-out of asymptomatic testing for staff. Asymptomatic testing went live through the community testing system last week, and I have written to local authorities to ensure that early years staff are prioritised in their community testing. Secondly, if maintained nursery schools and, indeed, other private providers have a staff shortage that means they need to close temporarily, they can still count those children for this week’s census—just as they can in any year if they have a temporary closure due to, for example, a flood. They can still count those children, provided the closure is only temporary.
Karl Turner [V]
Many children’s nurseries in east Hull face severe financial difficulty from years of underfunding, and from exclusion from support during this pandemic. The Minister knows that childcare providers in disadvantaged areas such as east Hull are the most likely to close, and that that would be catastrophic for many young children, whose life chances are shaped by early education. Can she guarantee that we will not lose essential childcare places in less well-off areas such as east Hull as a result of covid-19?
Vicky Ford
We have already announced in the spending review that we will put additional funding into early years entitlements in the next financial year. That will allow us to increase the hourly funding rates for all local authorities by at least 8p an hour for two-year-olds, and by 6p an hour for three and four-year-olds; of course, those in areas of higher disadvantage get higher amounts of money. That will pay for a rate increase that is higher than the cost nurseries may face from the uplift to the national living wage in April.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) [V]
Ministers are telling everyone to stay at home, yet early years providers are being told to stay open for as many children as possible or lose funding. This month’s funding changes mean that nurseries, pre-schools and childminders will be punished financially for having lower demand than usual, or for limiting their opening during lockdown, and 19,000 providers could close by summer as a result. Is that a price the Minister is willing to pay, or does she think those warning about this are wrong?
Vicky Ford
As the Opposition spokesperson knows very well, because I called her last week, we are providing that advice to settings to ensure that it is very clear that if parents are keeping their children at home because they are concerned about covid, settings can still count those children for the census, provided they are open. If they choose to close, they can furlough their staff using the other Government schemes. We will continue to monitor the situation very closely to see whether further support is needed.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
The early years are a crucial period for a child’s development, and early years education cannot be delivered online. That is why, in June last year, the Government prioritised getting children back to nurseries and childminders. Given the negative impact of children missing education, Public Health England’s advice that the early years sector is a less significant driver of community transmission, and the low rates of infection among the very young, we advise that early years settings should remain open to all children, and we are working with early years organisations to ensure that no young child gets left behind.
Nickie Aiken [V]
I am proud to support and be a member of the early years healthy development review, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). We will share our recommendations in February. The review team has found, from discussions with early years professionals, that family hubs play a vital role in ensuring that every infant gets the best start in life, including as regards their educational development. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Vicky Ford
I so agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we are setting up a national centre for family hubs. There are already many family hubs across the country providing a wide range of integrated services, including support for families in the early years. I visited the family hub in Westminster in her constituency to see the difference it makes to families. We want to ensure that successful approaches, such as that in Westminster, can be spread across the country.
Jack Brereton [V]
As a father with a son in nursery, I know just how important it is to keep early years open for all children. I thank the Government for doing so, and thank all our schools and early years providers across Stoke-on-Trent for everything they are doing to stay open for those eligible. Given the impact on children who are currently unable to attend school, and their families, will my hon. Friend outline what action will be taken to ensure those children catch up quickly when schools can fully reopen?
Vicky Ford
We have committed to a £1 billion catch-up package, which is a universal £650 million catch-up premium, and the £350 million national tutoring programme to support the most disadvantaged pupils. We expect providers to prioritise support for pupils by individual need. The Education Endowment Foundation has published guidance to support catch-up. To help the very youngest children to catch up, we are delivering the Nuffield Early Language Intervention in reception year. Some 40% of primary schools have signed up for the programme. These programmes will help many children in Stoke and across the country.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
We are investing over £400 million to support access to remote education, including by providing 1.3 million laptops and tablets to disadvantaged children. We are partnering with the UK’s leading mobile operators to provide free data, as well as deliver 4G wireless routers for pupils without a connection at home.
Paul Howell [V]
Wingate Community Nursery School in my Sedgefield constituency has continued to provide excellent early years education to its students throughout the covid-19 pandemic. As a result of the change to the early years education funding process, which will see nurseries receive funding per hour if a student is in attendance, and with many parents struggling with the decision of whether to send their children to nursery, Wingate nursery may find itself financially worse off. Will the Secretary of State look again at the changes to the funding process and confirm that they will not have a negative impact on nurseries financially?
Gavin Williamson
I would very much like to join my hon. Friend in thanking the staff at Wingate for all the work they do to support children, including in these incredibly difficult times. He is right to point out how we proceeded with the funding mechanism prior to Christmas. Obviously, in the light of the changing course of the pandemic, we had to make revisions to ensure that nurseries such as Wingate across the country get the support they need. That is why we have changed the approach to the census being carried out this week.
Rob Roberts
The Welsh Government, which is led by Labour with a Liberal Democrat Education Minister, have presided over an 8.4% real-terms reduction in education spending in the past 10 years. Last week, my office identified that dozens of the most deprived households in my constituency still do not have access to suitable devices for learning remotely. What advice can my right hon. Friend give me on assisting the young learners in my constituency, who are being let down once again by the Welsh Government?
Gavin Williamson
Of course, we will always want to work very closely with all the devolved Administrations, sharing good practice and good ideas across the board. I understand that the Welsh Government are still sitting on £1 billion-worth of covid funding provided to them by the UK Government. We would ensure that that was not sat in their coffers, but was spent wisely to support children in my hon. Friend’s constituency and right across Wales.
Daniel Zeichner [V]
In the city of Cambridge last week, 1,748 children were without a suitable device for learning. Across the county as a whole, almost 6,500 were. Ministers have had almost a year to sort this out. When will every child have access to the learning they need?
Gavin Williamson
I point the hon. Gentleman to an answer I gave earlier. Over 2.9 million devices are already in circulation within the school system. That has been supplemented by an additional 1.3 million, of which 750,000 have already been dispatched. Over the last two weeks, we have been seeing the dispatch of devices to schools running at approximately 20,000 each day.
Bob Seely [V]
I thank Ministers and education officers for their work, and most of all, I thank teachers on the Isle of Wight for keeping education going in these very difficult circumstances; I am sure that the Secretary of State would want to do so as well. Can he explain what further support is being planned for children in need on the Island and what is being done to ensure adequate virtual learning across all schools?
Gavin Williamson
I join my hon. Friend in thanking teachers and support staff on the Isle of Wight for their work over the last few months and for their continued work and efforts in terms of ensuring that every child on the Isle of Wight gets the very best education. We have already announced the increase in the number of devices that we are procuring—increasing that from the initial 200,000 that we announced a number of months ago to 1.3 million; this is very much there to complement the offer—and we have set out explicitly the expectations that we have of all schools and colleges in terms of the provision of remote education in these truly unprecedented times.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Students due to undergo assessments in 2020-21 deserve the opportunity to progress successfully on to the next stage of their lives. That is why, alongside Ofqual, the Government are currently consulting on the alternative arrangements needed for vocational and technical examinations due to take place from April onwards. In the meantime, we are investing over £400 million to support access to remote education and, having already delivered 700,000 laptops and tablets to schools up and down the country, we are now rolling out the programme to 16 to 19 year-olds in colleges. The majority of FE providers will be invited to order their devices by the end of January.
Andrew Rosindell [V]
As my hon. Friend will know, schools and colleges—for instance, Havering college in my constituency—were asked to make their own decisions about whether or not students should sit vocational exams in January, meaning that some exams went ahead while others were cancelled. What measures are the Government taking to ensure that students will not be unfairly disadvantaged, whether they were able to sit their exams or not?
Gillian Keegan
I thank my hon. Friend for his question because it gives me the opportunity to make one thing absolutely clear to the House: no student will be disadvantaged by their decision either to sit their January assessment or to defer it. That means that, for those learners requiring a licence to practise, which can be fulfilled only through practical assessment, that assessment can go ahead, and, indeed, many did. Launched on Friday, Ofqual’s consultation is seeking views on what the alternative arrangements should be and how those alternative arrangements will ensure fairness for all learners and give everybody the opportunity to progress on to their next stage.
Peter Aldous [V]
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for those replies. It is very important that the students and apprentices taking technical and vocational exams are not overlooked. Will she assure the House that the work of making alternative arrangements for them will be given a high priority and the necessary resources; that these arrangements will be conveyed quickly; that priority will be given to returning to buildings when on-site assessments are a key part of a course; and that exam support services will be available to colleges as well as to schools?
Gillian Keegan
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and I could not agree more about the importance of ensuring vocational and technical qualification students are treated fairly and not disadvantaged compared with their peers. We have been working at pace with Ofqual to ensure appropriate arrangements are in place specifically for vocational and technical qualification learners, and the joint consultation we published on Friday seeks views specifically on those qualifications. As soon as possible, we will prioritise safe attendance for those students who need to attend on site in order to prepare for practical assessments, where it is impossible for that training to take place remotely. I can confirm that the exam support service is indeed available to colleges as well as schools.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I pay tribute to everyone in the further education sector, and particularly those college leaders who have been left with very difficult decisions to make this January because of the BTEC exam fiasco. The Government’s farcical approach to those exams has left college leaders to show leadership and concern for pupil and teacher safety, in the absence of any from the Government. As the question from the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) has just exposed, we now have students and colleges on different tracks to the same exams. It is all so unnecessary. How many more vocational students must suffer as a result of the Secretary of State’s inability to make the right decisions at the right time?
Gillian Keegan
I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to everyone in the further education sector. They have done an amazing job in keeping learning going, whether remotely—they have been absolutely outstanding in that area—or by preparing colleges to take students.
Learners up and down the country have faced unprecedented challenges this year. For those who have worked so hard over recent months preparing for their January exams, particularly those who require a practical licence to practise, it is right that we allow them the opportunity to progress, because no alternative arrangements are capable of being put in place for those types of exams. Schools and colleges are best placed to know whether they are in a position to deliver the January exams and what mix of students they have, which is why in the light of rapidly evolving public health advice, we took the decision to give them the final say on whether proceeding with January exams was right for their learners. I am sure the hon. Gentleman, and indeed the whole House, will join me in wishing those learners all the very best for their results.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Some £102 million of funding for exceptional covid-related costs incurred by schools in the first lockdown period of March to July 2020 has already been distributed to schools, and for November and December, schools under financial pressure that have exceptional additional staffing costs due to covid-related absences have been able to claim from the covid workforce fund.
Munira Wilson [V]
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He is aware from our discussions that many Twickenham schools have incurred significant one-off and ongoing costs to become covid secure that they have not been able to reclaim, at the same time as losing tens of thousands of pounds from lettings and fundraising. Many of them do not have significant cash reserves to rely on, nor does the council have the money to bail them out, so if schools are to reopen fully and safely as soon as possible, could the Minister please advise which staff and activities he thinks are expendable so that they can make ends meet?
Nick Gibb
The hon. Member will be aware that we secured a three-year funding settlement for schools, with a 4% increase in funding for the next financial year, and we have also secured for this year a £1 billion catch-up fund and the covid workforce fund. If a school is genuinely in financial difficulties, it should talk to the local authority if it is a maintained school, or to the Education and Skills Funding Agency if it is an academy.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
Ensuring the safety of children, the workforce and families is our overriding priority. The early years and schools workforce are classed as essential workers for the purposes of accessing testing, and we continue to update our guidance to help specific settings provide a safe and secure environment for children and staff.
Clive Lewis [V]
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has contradicted the Government by saying that it has not authorised the use of 30-minute lateral flow tests to allow students to remain in classrooms instead of sending whole groups or bubbles home. Will the Minister confirm that no tests are being done on our children that have not met with regulatory approval, and will the Government commit to putting the health and safety of children first, instead of the PM’s deregulatory ideology that is turning our schools into experimentation labs for big pharma?
Vicky Ford
We have added NHS Test and Trace and Public Health England, and we have asked them to provide rapid updated public health advice on daily contact covid testing in schools. This is in the context of the current prevalence of the virus and the high transmission rates. The Department, NHS Test and Trace and Public Health England encourage the weekly testing of all staff, although this remains a voluntary matter for individual staff members. As I said earlier, early years staff will be prioritised through community testing.
Sarah Jones [V]
Last week, I was contacted by the inspirational headteacher of Tunstall Nursery School in my constituency. She and her team have worked so hard to ensure that vital education is provided to kids as safely as possible, but she contacted me to express urgent concern over the safety of her pupils and staff because of covid-19. Other nurseries and special schools in my constituency have contacted me with the same concern. Does the Minister agree that this situation is unacceptable and that, at the very least, they deserve to see the clear detailed scientific evidence and advice that the Government have received about the safety of early years settings? Why have we still not seen that?
Vicky Ford
All the advice that we have been given has been made public. There are three reasons why we have kept early years settings open and they are all important. Early education gives the child communication and social skills that set them up for life. You cannot teach a small child online, and they cannot get those months back. Our public health advice remains that younger children play a lower role in community transmission, and the evidence at the moment is that the confirmed cases of covid among the very youngest children are the lowest of all age groups.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
We have already increased the hourly funding rates for local authorities for the next financial year, and this will pay for a rate increase that is higher than the cost that nurseries may face from the uplift for the national living wage in April. We are also increasing the minimum funding floor. We have provided further advice on how the census will work this year, and we are continuing to monitor the situation closely.
Grahame Morris [V]
Maintained nursery schools in my constituency not only provide first-class early education but support many working families with childcare, yet many are facing huge financial pressures because of the pandemic, because they are not able to access the same support as schools and businesses. When will the Government live up to their promise of giving them a long-term future by guaranteeing their funding?
Vicky Ford
Maintained nursery schools are a really important part of the early years environment. We give them extra supplemental funding, and we have already announced that we will be giving them the supplemental funding for the next financial year. Obviously, this was a three-year spending review process, so I cannot go further than this financial year, but they will also get the other benefits from the uplift that we are doing for the Government-paid entitlements for two, three and four-year-olds on top of that. I would like to thank all the maintained nursery schools and early years providers in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Although exams are the fairest way of assessing what a student knows, it is no longer viable for exams to go ahead as planned, so international baccalaureate students should be subject to a similar approach to GCSEs and A-levels. Working with Ofqual, we are consulting on alternative arrangements for fairly awarding grades in qualifications, including the IB, when exams do not take place, so that students can progress to the next stage of their lives.
Gareth Johnson [V]
Some of the schools in my constituency elect to take the IB examinations rather than A-levels. No final decision has yet been taken as to whether those exams will take place this spring, so will my right hon. Friend commit to assisting these schools, so that no child who takes the IB exam will be disadvantaged compared with those who are due to take A-levels?
Nick Gibb
I am aware of some excellent schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency, particularly Dartford Grammar School, under the excellent headteacher, Mr Oakes, that do offer the IB. The joint consultation document that we published on Friday says that
“it is the Department’s policy position that external exams for many vocational, technical and other general qualifications should not take place as planned.”
It goes on to say:
“For other general qualifications that are not GCSEs…or A levels, such as…the International Baccalaureate, the awarding approach should be similar to GCSEs, AS and A levels”.
In other words, we are talking about teacher-assessed grades but with the evidence base and checks and balances, as set out in the consultation document.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
The Prime Minister announced a new 10-year school rebuilding programme, which will transform education for thousands of pupils. It was launched with a commitment to 50 new school building projects a year, targeted at school buildings in the worst condition. We have also committed £1.8 billion next year to improve the condition of school buildings.
Christian Matheson
Upton-by-Chester High School in my constituency is a good school with an outstanding sixth form, but its buildings are not fit for purpose. What would the Minister advise me and the school leadership that they need to do to make sure they catch his eye in future programmes? Will he come to Upton, as soon as he is allowed, to visit the school?
Nick Gibb
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that since 2015 we have allocated £9.5 billion to maintaining and improving school buildings. In addition, the priority school building programme is rebuilding or refurbishing buildings in the worst condition at more than 500 schools. I would be delighted to discuss with him Upton-by-Chester High School, which has a very high EBacc entry figure of 60%. It is a good school and I congratulate its headteacher, Mr Cummins, on what he has achieved.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
I very much wish to start by thanking all those who work in our schools, colleges, early years settings and universities for the work they have been doing over the past few weeks to ensure that youngsters and people of all ages who are using our education establishment get the very best education. In the light of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, we have confirmed that GCSE, A-level and AS-level exams will not be going ahead as planned this summer. This year’s grades will be awarded based on the judgment of teachers, not algorithms. I am pleased to confirm that Ofqual, with the Department, has launched a two-week consultation to seek views on how to fairly award all pupils, including private candidates and students taking vocational qualifications, the grades they truly deserve.
Suzanne Webb [V]
May I, too, start by thanking all teachers and educational staff in Stourbridge, who continue to do a vital job in the most difficult of circumstances? Although we are asking the vast majority of schools to move to remote provision, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is only right that we, once again, keep schools open for vulnerable children and those whose parents are working on the frontline of our response to this pandemic?
Gavin Williamson
I very much join my hon. Friend and neighbour in thanking all those teachers and support staff who have been doing a brilliant job in Stourbridge in keeping schools open for children of critical workers and for vulnerable children. It is important to emphasise the need to encourage children, especially those in most vulnerable categories, to come into school and continue to have that support and protection that school offers them, and the importance of doing so—it gives them so much support, in sometimes difficult circumstances. I thank all teaching staff for ensuring that schools remain open for children of critical workers.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The utterly inadequate school food parcels we saw last week were an absolute scandal, one that was, however, entirely in line with the Government’s own guidance. So why has it taken the Secretary of State until the third week of term to initiate a voucher system? Can he tell the House how many parents received vouchers today?
Gavin Williamson
As the hon. Lady would know if she had taken the time to read our guidance, those food parcels did not meet the expectations or the guidance that we set out. They are not acceptable and we have made that clear. We are very keen to ensure that schools have the choice and freedom to choose what is best for children in their school. That is why we have given schools—[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady stopped chuntering from a sedentary position she would have the opportunity to hear my answer. That is why we have given schools the opportunity to choose food parcels, vouchers that are locally procured or the national voucher scheme. More than 15,000 of those vouchers have already been dispatched today.
Kate Green
Ah, so we got the answer in the end. The truth is that the Secretary of State was late in planning the voucher scheme, late in getting laptops to students, late in consulting on replacing exams, and late in announcing that students will not return to school in January. After delay after delay, has he finally realised what parents, pupils and staff have known for months, which is that he is just not up to the job?
Gavin Williamson
Time and again, we have recognised where there are real challenges in dealing with the global pandemic. That is why we have taken the action that we have. That is why we are distributing 1.3 million laptops right across the country.
That is why we have put the national voucher scheme in place. That is why we are supporting families who are often the most vulnerable and why we will continue supporting families who are the most vulnerable.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
We have provided unprecedented support to the early years sector throughout the pandemic, through the block-buying childcare places, furlough and other schemes. We are monitoring the current situation really closely and will continue to review it if further measures are needed. For example, where education and childcare settings have an unmet need for PPE, they can access it via their local authority or local resilience forums. We will continue to keep supporting our early years sector.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
Vicky Ford
Independent and semi-independent provision can be the right choice for older children who are ready for this where it is high quality and meets their needs. It can enable them to develop their independence as they transition into adult life. However, we are absolutely clear that we need to do more to ensure that the quality of this provision is consistently good, and that this type of provision is simply not appropriate for children under the age of 16 who should be placed in children’s homes or foster care. We have consulted on introducing national quality standards and we will publish the Government’s response to the consultation in due course.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) [V]
Vicky Ford
DFE helplines have been giving support to schools and others on a wide range of matters. On Wednesday morning, after seeing some of the photos of unacceptable parcels, we announced that parents could call the DFE if they had a problem with a lunch parcel, but that they should try to resolve it with the school first. There are around 1.4 million children on free school meals. By the end of last week, we had received a total of seven calls in relation to unacceptable lunch parcels. Each has been fully investigated. We expect high-quality lunch parcels for our children.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) [V]
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Ensuring that no child suffers a loss to their education or damage to their long-term prospects as a consequence of the pandemic is a key priority of education policy. That is why we have secured £1 billion of catch-up funding from the Treasury; £350 million of that is for the national tutoring programme, and £650 million is being distributed to all schools across the country on the basis of £80 per pupil and £240 per pupil in special school settings. That money can be used to target the children who most need to catch up.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Nick Gibb
Formal Ofsted inspections have been suspended until the summer term. What is happening is that Ofsted is engaged in monitoring visits for schools rated “inadequate” or “requires improvement”, and having discussions about the quality of the curriculum and the challenges that schools are facing with remote education. We have set out clear expectations for what we expect schools to do with regard to remote education, including the fact that at key stage 1 there should be three hours of remote education, at key stage 2 four hours, and at key stages 3 and 4 five hours a day.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) [V]
Gavin Williamson
We are very much looking forward to the APPG being rechristened the Turing APPG, hopefully in the not-too-distant future. I can confirm that the Minister for Universities, my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady and her colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group to see what more can be done to expand these truly great opportunities for all young people right across the United Kingdom to see the world and to learn from the experience of studying in so many institutions right across the globe.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) [V]
Gavin Williamson
I echo my hon. Friend’s thanks to all teachers in Stockton South, and not only for the amazing work they did last term, but for what they are continuing to do. He is absolutely right to highlight children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. That is why our covid catch-up fund is so incredibly important in helping them to catch up, and why our roll-out of 1.3 million laptops right across the country is so important in helping to support schools. The best thing that we can do is see all schools return at the earliest possible date, with children benefiting from being back in the classroom and learning directly from their teachers.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
Gavin Williamson
We will always look at how best we can support students. We have announced an additional £20 million of hardship funding for students, to be administered through universities in England, and we will continue to keep that under review.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
There can be no excuses when universities are not offering the type of remote teaching and educational support that is expected. That is why it is so critical that, where that remote teaching and support is not happening, students’ rights are upheld. We saw at the tail end of last year that students’ rights were upheld and universities had to redress that. That is the right approach. We recognise how important it is to support students, which is why we will continue to look at how best we can support them through programmes such as the hardship fund.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Vicky Ford
We are in continual contact with Public Health England, through the Department, and we also meet early years representatives. I have been touring special schools virtually throughout. Our early years are vital years of education for the youngest, which they cannot get back, our special schools provide vital support for young people with disabilities, and alternative provision settings are vital for our most vulnerable. All those settings are usually smaller than other settings, which is why they have less of an impact on community transmission —it should be remembered that we closed schools to reduce community transmission—and why PHE continues to advise us that closing them is not needed to bring down the R number.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) [V]
Vicky Ford
We have kept our schools open to those with the most severe special needs and disabilities and those with an education, health and care plan. We continue to back up and support local authorities to improve their special educational needs and disabilities provision, to make sure that those young people who need an EHC plan can get one as soon as possible. We are working with councils all across the country.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) [V]
Gavin Williamson
This is something everyone in this House feels incredibly passionately about. I know through seeing at first hand, coming from a family with parents who fostered for many years, how important it is to get high-quality children’s social care right in this country. I want a real revolution to come out of this report, and I am incredibly pleased that Josh MacAlister has taken on this role to deliver the changes that I think Members on both sides of the House want. I have said quite clearly that I do not want him to hold back in tackling difficult issues. I want to see change, improvement and children’s lives transformed. By working on a cross-party basis, I believe that that is what we can deliver.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) [V]
Mr Speaker
Unfortunately, that brings us to the end of the time for questions, due to a connection failure. I am suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Police National Computer
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the technical issues that we have experienced with the police national computer over the past week.
The records and information held by the police help to keep us safe, but they, like many other public bodies, have an obligation to ensure that the information they hold is properly managed. As I am sure you are aware, Mr Speaker, not all information and records held by the police can be held indefinitely. To ensure that the police are complying with their legal obligations in respect of the records they hold, a regular housekeeping process is undertaken to delete personal data and records from the police national computer and linked databases: in this case, data relating to individuals who were investigated by the police but where no further action was taken. This is undertaken for a variety of reasons, but chiefly to abide by legal obligations.
With such a large database, holding some 13 million records, an automated process is used to remove records that the police national computer has no legal right to hold. A weekly update was designed by engineers and applied to the police national computer, which then automatically triggers deletions across the PNC, and other linked databases. Last week, the Home Office became aware that, as a result of human error, the software that triggers these automatic deletions contained defective coding and had inadvertently deleted records that it should not have, and indeed had not deleted some records that should have been deleted. An estimated 213,000 offence records, 175,000 arrest records and 15,000 person records are being investigated as potentially having been deleted. It is worth the House noting that multiple records can be held against the same individual, so the number of individuals affected by this incident is likely to be lower. Operational partners are still able to access the police national computer, which holds, as I say, over 13 million records. Clearly this situation is very serious, and I understand that colleagues across this House will have concerns, which of course I share.
By your leave, Mr Speaker, I want to set out for the House the steps that we have taken to deal with this complex incident. On the evening of 10 January—the same day the Home Office became aware of the incident—engineers put a stop on the automated process to ensure that no further deletions took place. All similar automated processes have also been suspended. Early last week, Home Office civil servants and engineers worked quickly to alert the police and other operational colleagues, and established a bronze, silver and gold command to manage the incident and co-ordinate a rapid response. The gold command provided rapid guidance for police forces and other partners to ensure that they were kept abreast of the situation.
Secondly, Home Office officials and engineers, working closely with the National Police Chiefs Council, police forces and other partners, immediately initiated rapid work, through the gold command, to assess the full scale and impact of the incident. This included undertaking a robust and detailed assessment and verification of all affected records, followed by developing and implementing a plan to recover as much of the data and records as is possible, and to develop plans to mitigate the impacts of any lost data. This is being done in four phases. Phase 1 involves writing and testing a code to bring back accurate lists of what has been deleted as a result of the incident. Phase 2 will involve running that code and then doing detailed analysis on the return to fully analyse the records that have been lost and establish the full impact. Phase 3 will be to begin the recovery of the data from the police national computer and other linked systems. Phase 4 will involve work to ensure that we are deleting any data that should have been deleted as usual when this incident first began. Phase 1 of the process has taken place over the weekend, and I am assured that it has gone well. The second phase is now under way, and I will hopefully have an update in the next few days.
While any loss of data is unacceptable, other tried-and-tested law enforcement systems are in place that contain linked data and reports to support policing partners in their day-to-day efforts to keep us safe: for example, the police national database or other local systems. The police are able to use these systems to do simultaneous checks.
I urge patience while we continue our rapid internal investigation and begin the recovery. I hope the House will appreciate that the task in front of us is a complex one. Public safety is the top priority of everyone working at the Home Office, and I have full faith that Home Office engineers, our partners in the National Police Chiefs Council and police forces throughout the country, with whom we are working, are doing all they can to restore the data. Although that is rightly our immediate priority, the Home Secretary and I have commissioned an internal review as to the circumstances that led to this incident, so that lessons can be learned. I will update the House regularly on the process. I commend this statement to the House.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I am grateful to the policing Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it, and I am grateful to him for his briefing over the weekend, but I must ask where the Home Secretary is. The loss of hundreds of thousands of pieces of data—data so important for apprehending suspects and safeguarding vulnerable people—is extraordinarily serious. It was the Home Secretary who needed to show leadership and take control. That is what previous Home Secretaries have done in a crisis. On the Passport Office, Windrush and knife crime, whatever their mistakes, Home Secretaries came to and answered to this House; they did not just offer a media clip, as has happened today. This Home Secretary, who is failing on violent crime and failing on the Windrush compensation scheme, with chaos on border testing, and who was found to have broken the ministerial code, will now not even answer to Parliament and the public on this most serious of issues. The Home Secretary likes to talk tough, but when the going gets tough, she is nowhere to be seen.
Will the Minister tell us when the Home Secretary first knew about the data loss and why the public had to find out from the media? Given that the initial reports were of 150,000 items of data, and the figure now seems to be over 400,000, can the Minister be sure of how much data has actually been lost? In his statement, the Minister said that on 10 January the process of deletion was stopped, but will he confirm that the faulty script was introduced into the police national computer on 23 November, meaning that the problem was not identified for 48 days?
The Minister said in his statement on Friday that
“the loss relates to individuals who were arrested and then released with no further action”.
This is serious in itself. For example, let us consider cases of domestic abuse: when suspects are released, the data becomes very important to protecting victims and making further arrests. In a letter, Deputy Chief Constable Malik, the National Police Chiefs Council lead for the police national computer, said that the deleted DNA contains
“records…marked for indefinite retention following conviction of serious offences.”
This is, therefore, not only data on individuals released with no further action; it includes data about convicted criminals, so will the Minister now correct the statement that he issued on Friday?
Will the Minister confirm whether 26,000 DNA records and 30,000 fingerprint records held on separate databases have been deleted? Will he assure the House that the engagement with the PNC to delete the Schengen information system—SIS II—database was unrelated? What is the full impact on the UK visa system from the data loss, and how is it affecting ongoing police investigations and intelligence gathering?
The PNC and the police national database are due to be replaced by the national law enforcement data programme, but the assessment by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority is that the successful delivery of the project is in doubt. Is it still in doubt? If so, why? There are reports that 18 months ago senior police outlined that the Home Office was not investing in the PNC and that it presented a significant risk to the police’s ability to protect the public. Was that warning heeded?
Finally, if it is not possible to recover data via the process currently under way, what contingency plans are in place to seek to recover the data via other means? Does the Minister accept that maintaining the security of this vital data is critical to addressing crime, bringing criminals to justice and keeping our communities safe, and that if the Home Office is not doing that, it is failing the public?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Gentleman has given me a long series of questions, which I shall try to answer as efficiently as I possibly can. Once the error became clear to the team, they escalated it up through the Home Office, first of all on Monday, and then through Wednesday into ministerial and other offices, in accordance with normal protocols.
As to the scale of the data, while the figure of 400,000 has been quoted, that is an accumulation of the various bits of information that may or may not have been deleted. As I said, a number of bits of information may apply to one individual, so the number of individual records on the PNC that might be affected could be smaller, but we will not know exactly until later this week, once the programme that is being analysed has come to an end.
As for when the script was introduced, that was indeed six weeks prior to what is called the weeding date, which is when the deletion was due to take place. That is standard practice, to load the script into the system some weeks before it is due to run. It did not run until the Saturday, when the error within it became immediately apparent.
As to the records that are affected, I am informed that the records that have been deleted are those that relate to people who were apprehended or put under investigation by the police. When there was subsequently a declaration of no further action to be taken, if there were prior convictions or offences on the police national computer, my information—what I have been told thus far—is that that those will remain. Only information relating to that specific incident, which was no further action, may or may not have been deleted. To a certain extent, that helps to mitigate some of the risk.
It is also worth pointing out that, as I said in my statement, there are other databases, both locally and those held nationally, such as IDENT the fingerprint database or the national DNA database, which may also be searched. The PNC draws its data from a number of other databases and when, because of our legal obligations, a deletion request is put on to the police national computer, it cascades deletions down through the other databases in accordance with the law. Those subsequent deletions were halted immediately, and that should help us, we hope, with recoverability of the dataset.
The hon. Gentleman asked about SIS II. That is indeed unrelated, and visa processing was suspended for approximately 24 hours. Everybody whose customer service threshold could not be met as a consequence of that was informed, but processing was resumed pretty quickly. We are assessing the impact on ongoing police investigations, while we analyse the report that has been run, which will give us the full picture of what has actually happened on the system.
Having said that, policing partners and the Home Office have put in place mitigations, not least informing other police forces—as Nav Malik did—that they should be making subsequent checks of their own and other databases, not least the police national database, which is a separate database from the police national computer and holds intelligence and other information.
On the national law enforcement data project, the replacement of the PNC, while that process has had its fair share of problems, it is fair to say we have undergone a reset. There is now a renewed sense of partnership working between the Home Office and the police, to make sure we get that much needed upgrade in technology correct.
The hon. Gentleman’s final point was about accepting the maintenance of data. He is absolutely right: we accept that it is very important that we, and indeed police forces and other governmental bodies that hold people’s personal data, do our best to maintain its integrity and to do so as faultlessly as possible. In these circumstances, we were attempting through this code to comply with our stringent legal obligations to delete personal data where it cannot be held by us or by other databases. Sadly, human error introduced into the code has led to this particular situation, which we hope is rectifiable. I am more than happy to keep the hon. Gentleman updated, as I did on Saturday afternoon, when I briefed him.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
I thank the Minister, the Home Secretary and the police leadership around the country for the very professional way in which they have responded to a most unfortunate error, an error that none of them wanted or made personally. Will he give us a little bit more encouragement, however, because is it not the case that there are now many good ways to retrieve data that has been wrongly deleted? Might we be looking at a remedy for this in a few weeks’ time, when the computer experts have finished their job?
Kit Malthouse
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the initial assessment was some optimism about the ability to recover this data, not least because it is held in a number of areas. We will not have the full picture until we get to the end of this week, once we have analysed the report and, of course, looked at the data that we should have deleted but have not because of this error. However, he is quite right that we should be optimistic about that and recognise that all is not lost. There are other ways that this data can be cross-checked, in particular as part of a police investigation. We are working with our policing partners to ensure that they make full use of that, so that they can proceed as usual with their investigations.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Two weeks ago, the Home Secretary was boasting that the United Kingdom is now a safer place because of Brexit. However, before it was disbanded by the Government, the Select Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union heard detailed expert evidence explaining why the United Kingdom is not a safer place as a result of the law enforcement part of the Brexit deal. One of the key reasons is that we have lost real-time access to Europe-wide databases on criminal records, DNA, fingerprints and, indeed, intelligence. That is not just my view but the expert view of Lord Ian Blair, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and Lord Peter Ricketts, the former National Security Adviser. Now that situation has been further exacerbated by this loss of important fingerprint, DNA and arrest history records, which the police use for real-time checks on our own UK-wide databases.
Mr Speaker, you really couldn’t make it up, yet curiously the Home Secretary is nowhere to be seen. Instead, she has sent her junior Minister to take the flak. I have two areas of questions for him. First, was this data cleaning operation in any way connected to the removal of records from the police national computer following the end of the transition period? Does the 400,000 figure include the 40,000 records that were removed from the police national computer post Brexit, or is it on top of that? Secondly, given the UK-wide nature of the database, what discussions have taken place with police forces in the devolved nations? Will the Minister commit to full co-operation with Police Scotland and other devolved forces until this issue is resolved?
Kit Malthouse
On the hon. and learned Lady’s two substantive questions, this had absolutely nothing to do with SIS II—the Schengen information system. These were, as I said earlier, deletions in line with our legal obligations not to hold data for people who are not of continuing interest to the police, under legislation that was enacted by this House some years ago. On the conversations with police forces, obviously the National Police Chiefs Council lead has cascaded throughout policing the information required to put in place mitigations. We will also, of course, co-operate as closely as possible, and I will be keeping my opposite number in the Scottish Government informed.
As to the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) and the hon. and learned Lady about the Home Secretary, I can only apologise that they are facing someone who is an inferior to their own status, but they will understand that the Home Secretary has an enormous draw upon her duties. She takes her duties in this House extremely seriously—there is no doubt about it—but I have been much more, I guess, embedded with this over the last few months, as one would expect for a Minister of State who is standing by his Home Secretary, doing her bidding.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I thank the Minister for providing the House with more detail on this unfortunate issue. Can he confirm that the police have a full understanding of what has happened and that appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that it is not repeated?
Kit Malthouse
That is absolutely right. I understand that the police were informed, along with the senior levels of the Home Office, on the Monday after the incident occurred, and they are part of the Gold group command that is dealing with the incident. As hon. Members will have seen from the letter that was leaked to The Times—the detailed letter that was sent round policing—the NPCC lead on this matter is very much at the table, working with us to ensure that we rectify it as soon as possible.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]
It is very hard to understand how 400,000 records could be deleted from such a crucial system without there being a proper back-up system in place. If this was the normal weekly process as ever, why was new coding being used? If new coding is often used, why are there not built-in safeguards? Is it true that Ministers were warned many months ago that their approach to the police national computer and database posed a significant risk to policing’s ability to protect the public? What did the Home Secretary do about that?
Kit Malthouse
With a large database of something like 13 million records, it is routine to use mini-programs that run on the database to deal with data. As I understand it, this new coding was put in place as a weeding request from policing itself. Obviously, to ensure that this does not reoccur, one of the questions that we will have to answer is: what went wrong not only in the writing of the code that introduced this error but in the quality and system checking that then sat behind it? Once we have gone through the exercise of ensuring that we have rectified this as much as we can, that will be exactly the kind of lesson that we learn.
There have been concerns about the process of replacing the police national computer and the police national database, but over the last few months, the Home Secretary and I have worked hard to put reset processes in place around that project. I am confident that we are now on a better footing to move forward to a brighter future for police technology.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) [V]
This incident is not without precedent—the Minister will recall that in 2007, 25 million child benefit records were lost. Can he confirm that everything possible will be done to remedy this and to learn whatever lessons need to be learned?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is right that, over the years, there have been a number of issues around governmental handling of data. It is a large and complex issue, and we are dealing with huge amounts of data that are very difficult to handle. He can be assured, and I hope the rest of the House will be, that we are working flat out to get on top of this problem and to rectify it. The first stage of our plan has gone well. The second stage is under way, and I expect to report better progress to the House in due course.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
The Times reports today that the Home Office was warned in July 2019 that police databases were “creaking” and that they operated on
“end of life, unsupported hardware and software”.
It further reports that the Home Office response was that it would only “fix on fail”. In other words, knowing that there was likely to be failure, the Home Office decided to just let it happen and fix it if it had to. Can the Minister tell the House whether there was ministerial involvement in that response, and if there was not, does he not think there should have been?
Kit Malthouse
I was not necessarily in post at that point, so I do not know whether there was ministerial involvement in that particular decision. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we have been working quite hard over the last year or so to get the technology projects in the Home Office—the national law enforcement data programme and the new communications network for the police—back on track. They have had their fair share of problems—that is no national secret—but I am confident that things are in a better position now than they were before.
While I understand the issues claimed in The Times today around the police national computer, it is worth pointing out that this issue had nothing to do with the state or otherwise of the hardware and software of the police national computer. It was pure human error in coding and was not necessarily a reflection of the age of that system. We are committed to putting in place a brand-new system. That project is now back on track after a reset, and I am confident that over the next two or three years, we will see a significant change in the way UK policing uses technology.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
Does my hon. Friend agree that, instead of attempting to score political points from this unfortunate error, the Opposition parties should be engaging constructively and working in the national interest?
Kit Malthouse
Yes. It is the hope of all Government Members that Opposition Members will work constructively with us. I had a very constructive briefing over the weekend with the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds); the shadow Policing Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones); and the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). We are committed to as much transparency as the House requires, because with a large, complex database, when human error is introduced, these kinds of issue need to be exposed so that we can all learn from them, whatever situation, political or otherwise, we are in.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
The Home Secretary likes to talk tough on crime, but the shocking loss of 400,000 records is a major failing on her watch and she is incapable of facing up to it. She should be here before the House today. The Policing Minister talked in his statement about mitigation. Can he give the House an absolute guarantee that no investigation has been or will be compromised because the deleted information could not be cross-referenced?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Gentleman again casts aspersions on the Home Secretary, who is one of the hardest-working politicians I have come across in my 20-odd years in politics, and I think it is deeply unfair to make that claim. As he knows, it is perfectly usual for Ministers of State to take urgent questions or indeed make statements in this House, and we are doing no different from what a Government that he supported did in the past.
We will know the full extent of the impact of this issue over the next few days, as our plan swings into action, and we are working very closely with police forces across the country, through the National Police Chiefs Council, to make sure that any operational impact is obviated or mitigated.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
I thank the Minister for his statement and for what I know is his personal commitment to resolving this matter. He will appreciate that offences are sometimes continued, which may be for lack of evidence, but that material that is retained may subsequently become valuable if it can be cross-checked in the event of arrests for subsequent offences. Will he make sure that obtaining a back-up of such material, which can be of importance to future prosecutions or investigations, is a top priority, and that all the other related criminal justice agencies will be kept fully informed of progress on this matter?
Kit Malthouse
In his usual succinct way, my hon. Friend puts his finger on the button of the issue. We are working very hard at the moment, as I say, to scope exactly what has happened and make sure we can retrieve exactly the sort of data that he refers to from the various other databases on which it is held—both at force and indeed at national level, or even, for example, at forensic provider level. There is some optimism that we may be able to do that, although we will not know for certain until later this week.
Having said that, as my hon. Friend will know from his very distinguished career at the Bar, the police have a number of other databases and sources of information from which they can seek corroborating evidence or otherwise through an investigation, and as I said before, we are working closely with them to make sure that those mitigations are in place while we get this problem sorted out.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) [V]
Millions of people, including me, watched ITV’s excellent recent drama series “The Pembrokeshire Murders”, which showed how painstaking police examination of old DNA evidence helped to convict a brutal serial killer many years after he committed his heinous crimes. Is it possible—and I think the public and victims of crime deserve an honest and candid answer from the Minister on this—that records that could help to convict serious offenders in the future have been lost forever?
Kit Malthouse
It is worth stressing, as I said before, that this data loss relates to people who have been subject to no further action from the police, and any biometric data—DNA, fingerprint or otherwise—that may have been deleted from the police national computer relates only to that offence for which no further action has been taken. At the moment—I am trying to be candid with the hon. Gentleman, as he urged me to be—I cannot give him an exact picture of what the downstream impact is, but it is worth pointing out that the police national computer is not the only place in which records such as the DNA records he refers to are held. We obviously have a separate DNA database, and then forensic providers who provide those samples also have their own DNA databases, and there is obviously intelligence that remains on the police national database as opposed to the police national computer. However, our primary effort at the moment is to scope the scale of the issue, and then to seek the rectification that both he and I would be keen to see.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for updating the House so swiftly on this unfortunate incident of human error. Can he confirm that everything humanly possible is being done to rectify it, and will he commit to updating the House on the recovery of the data?
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I can assure him that we are doing everything we possibly can. We have a very dedicated engineering team who have been working flat out since the incident occurred, including over the weekend, to seek rectification. As soon as I have more information about phase 2, I will make it known to the House through whatever channel is agreed with Mr Speaker.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]
The Minister has told the House this afternoon that the affected records apply to cases where individuals were arrested and then released with no further action. However, a letter sent from the National Police Chiefs Council to senior officers stated that records potentially deleted in error include records that have previously been marked
“for indefinite retention following conviction of serious offences”.
In light of what the Minister has told the House and in light of his earlier statement of 16 January, was the National Police Chiefs Council incorrect to make that statement to senior officers?
Kit Malthouse
No, the person from the NPCC was not incorrect, I do not believe, although the picture has evolved, it is certainly true to say, over the past few days. The information I have been given thus far is that where an individual may be on the police national computer for a number of offences over time, but on this occasion, for a particular offence, was released with no further action, it is only the information that relates to that particular offence for which there was no further action that may or may not have been deleted.
Having said that—I guess it is safe to put this caveat in—we are in the process of analysing exactly what the impact of this loss has been. Once that becomes clearer, I will be more than happy to give the hon. Gentleman and others in the House the assurance that they need or, indeed, to give the wider conclusions of what that report is telling us. These are all initial views of what we believe may well have been happening. The first phase of our recovery plan has gone well; the second phase, which is analysing what the report is telling us about this frankly huge database, will come in the next few days, and then I will be able to give more certain answers.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) [V]
Can my hon. Friend confirm for my constituents in Hertford and Stortford that the police national computer database is a really important tool to help our brilliant police and that, thanks to the swift action he has outlined, it remains so, notwithstanding what is an isolated incident of human error?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend speaks the truth, which is that the police national computer sits at the heart of British policing, providing enormously helpful information to police forces across the country seeking to apprehend criminals. It is still in use—it is still being used as we speak for the reasons that it needs to be, not least because we are talking about a very small percentage of the database overall that has been affected—and that is critically why we have committed to investing in a replacement for the police national computer, which is a system that I guess is a legacy from the past. We want to ensure that the police have the best technology and the best data handling available to them, so that they can do their best to fight crime on our behalf.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) [V]
The Minister will be well aware that this news will have caused great alarm right across the country, and certainly to the residents of Warwick and Leamington. Can he explain to us what assessment he has made in terms of safeguarding and those who are vulnerable, including the victims of domestic abuse? Does he agree that now is not the time to be cutting 87 back office staff from Warwickshire police, including the domestic abuse unit and all the corporate knowledge that goes with that?
Kit Malthouse
As I say, we are in the middle of phase 2 of our recovery plan, which is assessing precisely the scope of the issue we are facing and then moving into the recoverability of the data, so that we can mitigate exactly the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman mentions. As to decisions made by the police and crime commissioner for Warwickshire, I hesitate to inject an element of politics into this matter, but it should come as no surprise that the police and crime commissioner for Warwickshire is a Conservative, and it has routinely been rated as a very high-performing force.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) [V]
I am grateful for the update that has been provided to the House and the work that is being done to try to recover these records, but does my hon. Friend agree that the strength of condemnation of the Home Secretary from those on the Opposition Benches contrasts with their desire to install as Home Secretary someone who previously said we should not have any of these kinds of records in the first place?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend raises a very pertinent point. Of course, we were trying in this process to do what the law tells us to do, which is to respect people’s privacy and to delete data that we are supposed to delete. It is possibly true that some Members on the Opposition Benches—not, I have to say, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), but others on those Benches—have an interesting relationship with the notion of the police using and interpreting data. This is an issue of technical complexity, which software engineering experts in the Home Office are grappling with day by day. We will bring more information as we have it, but safe to say—I know that my hon. Friend takes a strong interest in policing and the policing family—we are doing our best to ensure that the police are in as good a position as they can be to continue to fight crime.
Mr Speaker
Let us head over to Northern Ireland with Jim Shannon—a virtual Jim Shannon!
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
My goodness, Mr Speaker; thank you very much, whether virtually or in person, but virtually today.
I thank the Minister for his most comprehensive statement. My concern lies in the fact that there are cases that are sensitively linked to Northern Ireland. I would appreciate an understanding that contact has been made with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to go over how the data breach may have affected Northern Ireland citizens and residents and, further, whether it is felt that victims of crimes in particular may be affected and what steps are to be taken if they are affected.
Kit Malthouse
As I say, the whole of UK policing has been involved, through the National Police Chiefs Council, in the effort both to comprehend the scale of the problem and then to put in place mitigation. The hon. Gentleman is quite right; as usual, victims of crime are uppermost in his mind, as they are, hopefully, in all of ours. I will be able to tell him later in the week, hopefully, what the precise impact might or might not have been and what the mitigations that we put in place will do to ensure that victims are not impacted while we recover this data and get ourselves back on an even keel.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
I thank the Minister for his statement. Can he confirm that the human error that caused this problem is being designed out of the system and that it would be more helpful for the Opposition to hold to account their own police and crime commissioner in the west midlands, who recently saw more than 16,000 crimes go unrecorded?
Kit Malthouse
It is often hard to design out human error in a system that interacts with humans, but my hon. Friend is quite right that one of the lessons that we need to learn from this process—and we will in time—is not necessarily just how the human error occurred so that we can prevent that from happening in the first place, but how the quality assessment system that should have picked it up over time before it ran did not do so. I suppose the reassuring bit of this incident is that the moment that script did run on the system, it rang alarm bells in the Home Office and a rectification plan swung into place. That should give some assurance that we are at least on top of problems where they occur; the next step is to ensure that they do not occur in the first place.
As to my hon. Friend’s wider point about the conduct or otherwise of the west midlands police and crime commissioner, I think it will become pretty clear in the run-up to the police and crime commissioner elections in May, as people focus on crime performance, where they should put their cross in the box.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
This extraordinarily serious scandal happened on the Home Secretary’s watch, yet, disappointingly, she is not here. As a former police officer, I know at first hand the value of the PNC. The reality is that the loss of fingerprints and DNA evidence will mean that the police are unable to tie suspects to crime scenes. In essence, this will result in criminals walking free and evading justice. Will the Minister outline what steps are being taken to ensure that this sort of loss never happens again?
Kit Malthouse
I do not know whether I ought to be taking offence at the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion of my obvious lack of suitability to appear before such an esteemed audience as Her Majesty’s Opposition, given their seeming obsession with the Home Secretary. I would have thought the most important thing was to ensure that the integrity of police data is as good as it can be and that the police are in the best position possible to fight crime. As I outlined in my statement—for the hon. Gentleman’s sake, I will say it once again—we are in the process of making sure that we understand the scale of the problem and then putting in place rectification and retrieving the data that is required. The stage that follows that is learning exactly the lesson that he wants us to learn, which is how we can ensure this it does not happen again.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for updating the House; he is more than capable of doing this. A previous shadow Home Secretary stated in the Chamber in 2018:
“The state has no business keeping records on people who are not criminals.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 640.]
Does my hon. Friend agree that the outcry from the Opposition Benches is indeed in contrast to that statement?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend, in his usual forthright way, identifies the perhaps interesting relationship that Opposition Members have had with UK policing and, indeed, the data and intelligence tools required by the police to put them in the best position to fight crime. I know that he and I will stand shoulder to shoulder, whatever the Opposition might say, to ensure that British policing gets the best technology and information it needs to ensure that it can fight crime in my constituency and in his, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, as it has been doing over the past 12 months.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]
The Home Secretary’s office claimed four days ago that no records of criminal or dangerous persons had been deleted. Can the Minister tell the House whether he knows that to be categorically true?
Kit Malthouse
One of the things that I said in my early statements was that I had asked officials from the police to confirm to me their initial assessment about what risk was posed to the public, and we are awaiting the conclusions of that particular report before I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical answer. What we do know is that these particular records that were deleted related to people who were released by the police with no further action. They were either arrested or under investigation, but for that particular crime they were what is called NFA. To a certain extent, that gives some assurance, but I am afraid I cannot I give him the full picture, possibly until later this week or early next week. I am fully committed to doing that.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) [V]
Can my hon. Friend confirm that those who are currently relying on police national computer data for investigations will be able to rerun their searches once the recovery work on the police national computer is complete?
Kit Malthouse
I can confirm that. The moment we have recovered the data and put things back as they were, and made sure that we have deleted the data that we should have deleted but had not, we will be encouraging police forces across the country to rerun their searches. It is worth reiterating what I said earlier, which is that there are other databases on which these searches can be run, and we are encouraging police officers and, indeed, working with the National Police Chiefs Council, to make sure that those mitigations are used as fully as possible by UK policing.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Could the Minister please update the House on whether the computer glitches reported today are having any impact upon recruiting? Could he also update us on the observation that police forces across the UK may be rejecting applications from re-joiners?
Kit Malthouse
It is very ingenious of my hon. Friend to get the uplift into this particular statement, but I welcome his ingenuity. The uplift is not affected at all. Recruitment is going well and, as he knows, we are ahead of target. He has raised with me the issue of his particular force not necessarily accepting applications from re-joiners. I am in the process of bottoming out that particular issue. As soon as I have an answer for him, I will let him have it.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
Mr Deputy Speaker, you would have thought that the Home Secretary would be fronting up a statement on an issue as important as this, but I guess that requires a commitment to the job that she appears to lack. The National Police Chiefs Council was told that the loss and mis-matching of biometrics and DNA samples matched were hampering the investigation of crimes. Are they also interfering with the operation of the visa and immigration system? Will we see visas granted that should not be and visas denied that should have been granted?
Kit Malthouse
First of all, may I object to the hon. Lady offering such a calumny against the Home Secretary? The Home Secretary is 200%—if that is possible—committed to the job. Throughout the covid pandemic, and indeed before, she has been at the helm on the bridge at the Home Office working as hard as any politician I have come across in my 20-odd years in frontline politics. It is deeply, deeply unfair to cast aspersions on her commitment, not least because even before she became Home Secretary I believe she was chair of the all-party group on victims of crime and has a long-standing commitment to doing the best for those who have been subject to heinous acts by others.
On the hon. Lady’s question about visas, there was a brief delay in the processing of visa applications for about 24 hours while the risk was assessed. It was deemed that the process could continue and nobody has subsequently been delayed.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House so swiftly to update us and for committing to continue to do so if there are further developments. Will he confirm that the Home Office is working with the police and partners to try to recover the data and assess the full extent of the problem?
Kit Malthouse
What a novelty to be asked a question in person! I can confirm what my hon. Friend says. We are working extremely closely with policing partners—the National Police Chiefs Council, the National Crime Agency and others—who use the computer system for their vital day-to-day work. They are involved in the gold group on this particular incident and obviously there have been ongoing conversations between the Home Secretary, the chairman of the National Police Chiefs Council and others to make sure we are in lockstep in our plan to mitigate and then restore the database to its previous integrity.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
Will the Minister confirm that among types of crime that very often lead to no further action are those involving domestic abuse? In that case, can he give an absolute guarantee to the House that there will be full recovery of all the data, or do we put at risk victims of domestic abuse when we know that building up a pattern of criminal behaviour is so important for the police and other agencies to bring offenders to book and to protect victims of domestic abuse?
Kit Malthouse
As I have said before, I am afraid I cannot, as yet, give the absolute cast-iron guarantee that the hon. Gentleman seeks on the restitution of the data. The early indicators are optimistic that we will be able to retrieve it, but until we have analysed the report that has been run today, we will not know for sure. That will take a few days. It is, however, worth pointing out to him that there are other systems elsewhere where the police retain intelligence about criminals and identifying markers, whether database or fingerprints. For example, for somebody who has been accused or for whom there is intelligence around domestic abuse, that detail may well be held on the police national database, which is a separate system to the police national computer. From that, the sort of person he is talking about may well be identifiable. However, I am afraid I cannot give him a full picture until, probably, the early part of next week.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
My hon. Friend has repeatedly said that this dreadful state of affairs was caused by human error. Can he confirm to the House that there is no suggestion of any criminal intent? Can he also confirm that one of the strengths of the system is that when this error happened, it immediately set off alarm bells, so that action could be taken?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend has a background in technology, so it is quite right that he should raise such pertinent questions. On his first question, no, there is no allegation of wrongdoing over and above error. On his second, he is absolutely right that we should be reassured by the fact that this human error was picked up the moment that it ran on the system. The ability to keep deleting items was stopped, and general instructions were sent out to the linked databases to stop them also deleting data, so we caught it pretty much as soon as it was happening. The question now is how quickly we can rectify it.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) [V]
If these 400,000 lost records are not recovered, this human error will have an impact on public safety, will it not?
Kit Malthouse
We will not know entirely until we have analysed the reports, but early indications were optimistic about recovery, as I say, because data is held elsewhere. If, in some circumstances, data is irrecoverable, we will have to consider other mitigations with policing partners to make sure that we remain as safe as we can in this country.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) [V]
In a few weeks’ time, Colin Pitchfork, who raped and brutally murdered two teenage girls in my South Leicestershire constituency some 30 years ago, will have a parole hearing. I know that the Minister is not responsible directly for the Parole Board, but he is responsible for public protection. First, can he write to me confirming that any records lost did not pertain to Colin Pitchfork? Secondly, and more importantly, can he give an assurance at the Dispatch Box that my constituents, if Colin Pitchfork is released, will not be put at risk by any of the records lost?
Kit Malthouse
I would be more than happy to write to my hon. Friend, as he requests. It is worth pointing out that the issue we are dealing with is people who have been subject to police investigation, or arrested and released with no further action. That would seem to exclude Mr Pitchfork from consideration. However, I will make sure in writing to my hon. Friend. He and I will both want to make sure that the offender management system, which is administered by the Ministry of Justice, ensures that the conditions put on that individual when, or if, he is released mean that people in my hon. Friend’s constituency, who wish to be safe, remain safe.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and for responding to questions from Members. For cleaning purposes, this sitting is now suspended for three minutes.
Opposition Day
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 278 / Noes: 0 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that the Government should stop the planned cut in Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit in April and give certainty today to the six million families for whom it is worth an extra £1,000 a year.
I am not here to claim that Conservative MPs are heartless, lack compassion, or have insufficient regard for the poorest people in this country. I know that after the vote on free school meals, many Conservative MPs, mainly after comments made by other Conservative MPs, received a high degree of personal abuse, and I want to make it clear unequivocally that that is wrong. I am here to put forward a clear and, I believe, compelling case that reducing universal credit and working tax credit this April would be fundamentally the wrong decision. It would be a profound mistake for families, for the economy and for our ability to effectively tackle and recover from the covid pandemic.
Before putting forward that case, I wish to address the Prime Minister’s suggestion that Parliament is somehow not the right place to have this discussion. Opposition days have been a feature of our parliamentary system for many decades. They were used very successfully by the Conservative party when it was in opposition—for example, when the Labour Government were defeated over resettlement rights for Gurkhas in 2009, or over post office closures. All majority Governments, except this one, have accepted that if they cannot win a vote in Parliament on one of their policies, then they have to change that policy. This decision cannot be deferred until a Budget, because the Government cancelled the November Budget and have not brought forward a Finance Bill since March.
I put it to all Members that Parliament is exactly the right place to have a discussion of such consequence to the country. The Government cannot expect to preach parliamentary sovereignty one week, and run away from parliamentary scrutiny the next. Too often, the Prime Minister seems unwilling to abide by basic democratic norms and to accept proper scrutiny and accountability. We have seen in the US where that can end.
Let me also say at the outset that, throughout the pandemic, the Opposition have always sought to be constructive. The official Opposition want the national strategy to succeed. In that spirit, we welcomed the changes that the Government made to universal credit at the beginning of the crisis. The £20-a-week weekly increase, and the suspension of conditionality and the minimum income floor, were necessary steps to support people. Recognition must also go to frontline Department for Work and Pensions staff, who kept our social security system going through the early stages of the crisis, making sure that hundreds of thousands of new claimants received the support they needed. All those staff deserve our praise, from the civil servants working in the Department to the security guards I met recently, who face difficult working conditions keeping Jobcentre Plus offices open.
However, the fact that such urgent changes were required to provide a basic safety net is a telling assessment of where the social security system was when we went into the crisis. If we cannot properly support people in a time of need without emergency surgery to the system, it is not fit for purpose. The fact is that support for people in this country when they lose their job or cannot work is significantly lower than in comparable European countries.
I will address three points: how we got here; the case for reversing this cut to secure our economy; and, finally, the human impact if the Government refuse to change course.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a pressing reason to have a debate and vote on this issue today is the fact that all the evidence suggests that the restrictions resulting from the measures taken to deal with covid have hit the poorest in society hardest? Poverty is up, and those people who most depend on this kind of support are the ones who are most damaged at the moment.
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree. Inequality, and the differential impact on people, has been one of the defining features of this crisis. I do not think anyone can avoid that. It is relevant to make that point in this debate.
We have to be honest about the state of our social security system going into the crisis. Since 2010, poverty has increased significantly in the UK. In addition, people who were in poverty in 2010 are now so much deeper in poverty than they were. This is not an argument about definitions. Conservatives themselves were the driving influences behind bodies such as the Social Metrics Commission, which came up with a new definition of poverty that was actually very similar to the one that has traditionally been used. The Government’s own estimate is that 4.2 million British children live in poverty. That is shameful, wrong and unnecessary.
The UK, along with Ireland, is an outlier compared with the rest of Europe when it comes to inequality. That means that the reality for millions of families is that they went into this crisis already under significant pressure. As the Resolution Foundation said in 2019, the 1.7% increase to universal credit that year was the first working-age benefit increase for five years. Last year, the real value of basic out-of-work support was lower than when John Major was Prime Minister, so anyone claiming that the system is too generous, or who is trying to resurrect the stigmatising rhetoric of George Osborne, simply has no case to make.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is a reasonable man—I like him. He is making a sensible speech. While we are being honest about social security systems, is it still the Opposition’s policy to abolish universal credit, as it would have been had they won the general election in December 2019, although it is widely accepted to have been successful in flexing to expand in the current crisis? Is it still Her Majesty’s Opposition’s policy to abolish the entire system, and what do they propose putting in its place?
Jonathan Reynolds
Yes, it is our policy to replace universal credit—not to abolish the welfare state, as some of those videos from Conservative central office have tried to make out today. After I address the causes and the question before us today, I will be happy to talk about some other problems that go beyond the core amount of universal credit, and about why replacing universal credit is the right policy. But before we get to that point, I have to stress that, if this cut goes ahead, it will leave unemployment support at its lowest level ever relative to average earnings. That is not just morally unjustifiable; it is economically incompetent. Cutting unemployment support in the middle of a recession is always the wrong choice, which is why no Government have done so since the great depression.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tone at the beginning of the debate. Just for our understanding, will he tell us whether the Opposition propose making this increase permanent? If so, how do they propose to pay for it?
Jonathan Reynolds
We believe that this uplift should stay in place during the crisis, and I do not think anyone believes that the crisis will end in April. I will make some points about long-term proposals near the end of my speech, as well as about why the whole system requires much more considerable reform than just tinkering around with the core amount.
The cost of paying for all this is significant: around £6 billion. That would vary depending on the levels of unemployment throughout the year, but any measure right now that cuts public spending or raises taxes in the middle of the biggest economic downturn for 300 years would be the wrong policy. Decisions will have to be made as we get into the middle of this decade to address the levels of debt that have been accrued by the Government during this crisis, but that is not the right choice now.
I want to focus on the point raised by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), because if the Government are seriously thinking about economic recovery, cutting universal credit is like pulling the rug from under the economy’s feet. This £20 a week is not saved by families; it is spent in shops and businesses across the country, stimulating the economy. We all agree that this pandemic and the unemployment crisis will not be over by April this year, and whatever protestations we have heard on social media or in the press—and, frankly, however people vote today—I know that there are many people on the Government Benches who agree with this case. The former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), recently said:
“Withdrawing the uplift would reduce the spending power of people on lowest incomes. This will likely reduce consumption, meaning families going without essentials and household debts rising. It would also see a reduction in spending just when the economy needs it most.”
I could not agree more with that assessment. He is also right to draw attention to the levels of personal debt for some households.
As well as the real value of benefits being historically low as we went into this crisis, the pandemic has meant very real additional costs for most families. There are more meals for people to cook at home, and more days to heat their house. People have devices and lights on at times they would not normally, and have to buy what they need to teach their children at home. The clinically vulnerable have been forced to buy food locally, at a higher cost than in larger supermarkets. Everyone has experienced the pandemic differently, but for some the costs have piled on.
Citizens Advice told me this week that three quarters of the people it helps with debt who currently receive universal credit and working tax credit would have a negative budget if the £20 was cut. That means that they will have less money coming in than going out, and will not be able to cover basic essentials such as food or heating—and it will come at a time when one in three households has lost income because of covid, and 7.3 million people are behind on their bills.
The proposed cut to universal credit and working tax credit is not the only issue causing consternation in the country right now. I would particularly highlight the continuing injustice for those people on employment and support allowance and jobseeker’s allowance, who did not even get the uplift to begin with. That is unjustifiable and discriminatory, and I ask the Minister if he would mind specifically referencing that point in his speech. Reversing the April cut to universal credit is a specific, clear and unavoidable decision that needs to be taken, which is why it is right that we are bringing it to Parliament today.
Some of the speeches that we will hear today will no doubt say that we should focus on jobs and getting people back to work, and not on social security. The Prime Minister said something along these lines at the Liaison Committee last week, but Members will know that universal credit is an in-work as well as an out-of-work benefit—40% of universal credit claimants are in work—so that argument does not work at all. To be frank, it would be helpful if someone told the Prime Minister that. Universal credit is also means-tested, so if people go back to work and do not qualify for it, they will not receive it at all. If we want to have a serious discussion about boosting employment and making work pay, let us discuss work allowances, the taper rate and deductions, but let not the Government try to use that as an excuse to do the wrong thing on this cut.
Others might say that support should be more targeted and the basic allowance is the wrong element to target. In that case, the Government would, logically, scrap the two-child limit or the benefit cap, which disproportionately affect people in the most difficulty—larger families in areas with higher housing costs. However, when we put that forward, it, too, was rejected.
Finally, there has been a proposal for a one-off payment to compensate people affected by this cut. That is an awful idea. It does not address the real-terms reduction in support, just as unemployment is expected to peak. More than that, although 6 million families are affected by this now, that cohort will change in composition throughout the year. A one-off payment based on who is eligible now will fail to support some of the people who need that help the most. So please, Minister, ask the Chancellor to think that one through again.
I know it sometimes frustrates Conservative Members that we are still determined to replace UC altogether—I was asked that question earlier—but I say to them that, if they will not listen to those on the Opposition Front Bench, they should read the work of the cross-party Select Committee on Work and Pensions and read the report of the cross-party House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, which is chaired by Lord Forsyth. They are clear and robust in highlighting the fundamental problems that currently exist: the five-week wait; the two-child limit; the erratic assessment period; the problems with paying for childcare in arrears; and the shocking design that means that many disabled people are worse off on UC. The last one of those is very personal to me and it simply is not right not to replicate how the severe disability premium worked under the previous arrangements. All this means that UC’s brand is severely tarnished. If everything was working as well as Ministers sometimes say, would we really be a country where food banks have gone from being a niche form of support, mainly for those without recourse to public funds, to a mainstream and essential method of keeping people fed? Would we have had the fundamental increase in child poverty, which is getting bigger with every year of Conservative government? Those questions deserve answers.
Throughout the crisis, the Government have often been behind the curve, never out in front, and they have left some decisions, such as on furlough extension, to the very last minute, in a reckless game of brinkmanship. That is heavily why we have, tragically, the highest death toll in Europe and the biggest economic downturn of any major economy. Let us not repeat that with this decision. We all know that families are looking at us, wondering what we will do to help make getting through this crisis just that bit easier. What they do not expect is the Government making it even harder. I hope that one thing we can all agree on is that the crisis has shone a light on some of the problems in the UK, problems that have made tackling the pandemic harder and provoked a discussion about what kind of society we want to rebuild when the pandemic is over.
If the ambition of Conservatives really is to level up the UK, it is hard to see how they can support a cut that would be so regressive to low-income families and which disproportionately affects the places the Government say they want to help. I am talking about families such Bethany and her child in Blackpool. She said to me, “I was made redundant due to coronavirus. As a single parent to a one-year-old, universal credit is now the only income I receive. If the Government does cut £20 a week, I will become one of the statistics needing to use a food bank. It devastates me to think that I will not be able to provide for my child should this decision be finalised.” Margaret, who has been volunteering at a food bank in Luton, says, “A young man came in for a food parcel. He looked thin and his face was grey. He sat down and he said that he thought he could last with no food until the universal credit came through, but he found that he couldn’t. He’d come in on a Wednesday and his universal credit was due on the Friday.” That is the reality before the cut has gone ahead. My inbox is full of personal accounts such as those. I urge every Member to look at what is in their inbox, read about the human cost of what it will be like for people if this cut goes ahead, address the worries people have about not being able to put food on the table, and think long and hard about the uncertainty and fear that all families face after 10 long, hard months of this pandemic.
I want to make a special appeal to the new MPs on the Conservative Benches whose constituents elected them in good faith for the first time in 2019. Many of those people are the first Conservative to ever be elected to those places. They have already made history and their success is a significant personal achievement. They will be remembered, but so will their votes. Most of all, when thinking about how to cast their vote today, I urge everyone to take a moment to reflect on what this cut will mean to the people who send us here: the uncertainty it will add in an already uncertain time; the loss it will bring when we have already lost so much; the fear it will cause when what people need is hope. So, for our constituents, for the economy and for the national interest, we need to cancel this cut and I ask every Member of the House today to support our motion to do so.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call the Minister, I have three points to make. As people in the Chamber can see on the annunciator—I am not sure whether people can see it at home—there is a three-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions. For those who are contributing outside the Chamber, there is a timing clock, which you should be able to see on the bottom right hand corner of whatever device you are using. It would be a lot cleaner if Members could bring their contributions to a close before the three-minute limit is up, otherwise you will be interrupted by the Chair. For the convenience of everyone as well, the question will be put at 7.15 before we move on to the next business.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
I welcome today’s debate. It gives me the opportunity to highlight some of the unprecedented support that this Government have provided to people right across our country who have been affected by covid-19. I can confirm that the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister will not be moved this afternoon.
Without doubt, this has been a challenging time for many. That is why, since the start of this pandemic, we have mobilised our welfare system like never before in modern times, with a wide-ranging package of measures worth more than £7 billion. Members across the House will raise the future of the £20 per week uplift to universal credit, which I will come on to shortly.
I want to start by talking about how well the Department and universal credit have stood up to the challenge of the pandemic. Many people have sadly lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic, or seen their incomes reduced. Universal credit and the Government’s investment in the welfare safety net have been there to help catch many of those affected. That has been hugely important for the 3 million more people who have made a benefit claim since March last year.
I am so incredibly proud of how thousands of work coaches in jobcentres up and down our country have responded at speed and scale to ensure that we have supported those additional people in their hour of need, especially as the number of people on universal credit rose from 2.9 million last February to nearly 6 million in November. Through our £895 million investment, we are well on the way to meet the Government’s pledge to recruit 13,500 new work coaches by the end of the financial year.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
This morning, I chaired a meeting of the Northfield covid recovery strategy group with Becky from Northfield Community Partnership. We learnt this morning that, in Birmingham and Solihull, we will see an extra 430 work coaches, 24 of whom will be based at the Longbridge jobcentre. Does the Minister agree that that is a perfect example of how the Government are taking a proactive approach to making sure that we get people back to work as quickly as possible?
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right that not just in his constituency, but in constituencies up and down the country, our Jobcentre Plus network of dedicated work coaches have worked incredibly hard to process an unprecedented number of claims and they stand ready to help support people back into work. That is exactly why we have secured this additional investment from Her Majesty’s Treasury to, in effect, almost double the number of work coaches across our network across our country.
Work coaches are just one part of the jigsaw; the other is the universal credit system itself. Universal credit has, without doubt, stood up to the challenge of covid-19, whereas the previous legacy benefits system would have buckled under the pressure. Millions more were able to access financial support that is fairer and more generous than the legacy benefits system. We have made the processing of claims and paying people quickly the top priority for this Department. Over 90% of new claimants receive their payment in full and on time.
We have a modern, dynamic, agile, fairer welfare safety net that, in the face of unprecedented demand, ensured that millions of people were paid in full and on time. So what is Labour’s position? It is to scrap it.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Is it now the policy of the Department, as the Prime Minister suggested at the Liaison Committee last week, that people should move from legacy benefits to universal credit in order to gain the £20 per week increase? If that is now the policy, what about the position of those who have been receiving the severe disability premium, who are not allowed to move to universal credit?
Will Quince
I thank the Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee for that intervention. I would be very happy to meet him, alongside the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, to discuss, in particular, those in receipt of the severe disability premium. Yes, it is the position of Her Majesty’s Government that we want more people to move over from legacy benefits, including working tax credits, on to universal credit, because it is a modern, more dynamic benefits system; it is the future. However—this is a very important caveat—I would encourage anybody looking to move over from legacy benefits to universal credit to first go on to gov.uk and check their eligibility, because it is important to note, as I know the Chairman of the Select Committee knows well, that on application for universal credit, the entitlement to legacy benefits will cease, so it is very important that people do check.
As I said, we have a modern, dynamic, agile, fairer welfare safety net that, in the face of unprecedented demand, ensured that millions of people were paid in full and on time. Therefore, it is quite astonishing that the position of Her Majesty’s Opposition is to scrap it—a system that, by any measure, has passed the most challenging of tests. This weekend they briefed to the papers with a press released entitled, “Cut to universal credit to hammer families in marginal Conservative seats”, playing politics with the lives of nearly 6 million vulnerable people rather than focusing on helping them through this pandemic. We will take no lectures whatsoever from Labour on universal credit. There is little doubt that had we relied on the legacy benefits system, we would have seen queues down the streets outside jobcentres and long delays leaving families facing financial disruption without support.
Jonathan Reynolds
As the Minister has raised press speculation, will he comment on the news in the papers at the weekend that the reason he is here and not the Secretary of State is that the Secretary of State agrees with us and it is the Treasury that is behind the cut of £20 a week from April?
Will Quince
The reason I am here today responding to this debate is that I am the Minister responsible for universal credit and this is a debate about the £20 per week uplift to universal credit. The Secretary of State is in active discussions with Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, of course, the Prime Minister about how best to continue to support the most vulnerable, disadvantaged, lowest-paid and poorest in our society, as the Chancellor has consistently done throughout this pandemic.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend confirm that conversations are still ongoing and that one of the reasons for that is that this does need to be fully costed because it is a lot of money? I was hoping that the shadow Minister would lay out how Labour intended to pay for the uplift.
Will Quince
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Maintaining the uplift would cost a huge amount of money—somewhere in the region of £6 billion. But it is not just about that. Throughout this pandemic, we have always looked at how best to support the poorest, most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society. Because this is an ever-emerging and changing situation—that is the very nature of a pandemic—we have to keep everything under review. That is why the Secretary of the State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister do meet regularly to discuss all these issues. I want to make one further point because it was raised by the Chairman of the Select Committee: yes, we will continue the roll-out of universal credit, as we committed in our manifesto, ensuring that those on legacy benefits and working tax credits are moved across by 2022.[Official Report, 1 February 2021, Vol. 688, c. 6MC.]
I will now turn to the specific issue of the UC uplift. The Labour party is quite simply wrong in its use of emotive language, saying that the Government plan to cut universal credit. The £20 per week uplift to universal credit and working tax credit was announced by the Chancellor as a temporary measure in March 2020. This additional support increased the universal credit and working tax credit standard allowances by up to £1,040 for a year. We took this approach in order to give those people facing the most financial disruption the financial boost they needed as quickly as possible. The agility and flexibility of the universal credit system allowed us to implement this vital increase rapidly, and was hugely successful in giving claimants—many of whom, incidentally, had not interacted with the DWP before—a foundation by which to navigate the uncertainty of the beginning of this pandemic, and in many ways lessen the drop in earnings.
The Chancellor has always been clear that this measure remains in place until the end of the financial year. I hear the calls from Labour and, indeed, from the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for a decision now on whether the uplift to universal credit will continue post April, and I have sympathy with the argument that it would give claimants certainty. However, one of the evident features of a pandemic is uncertainty: if the hon. Gentleman is certain about what the economic and social picture will look like in April, then to be frank, he must have a crystal ball. The reality is that we simply do not know what the landscape will look like, which is why it is right that we wait for more clarity on the national economic and social picture before assessing the best way to support low-income families moving forward.
Why is that important? One word: agility. The poorest and most disadvantaged in our society are best served by a Government that have the agility to respond to emerging situations and the facts at the time. None of us in this House can say with any certainty what the economic landscape will be like in April, which is why we continue to work with Her Majesty’s Treasury on the best way to support those in receipt of benefits.
I will add one more thing, which is that I know my right hon. Friend the Chancellor well, and I put it to right hon. and hon. Members that, throughout this pandemic, he has consistently stepped up to support individuals’ jobs and livelihoods. This is the Chancellor who created the furlough scheme and the self-employment income support scheme; uprated universal credit by £1,040 this year; lifted the local housing allowance by £1 billion; protected renters from eviction; protected homeowners; gave grants to businesses; supported rough sleepers to get off our streets; funded the local welfare assistance scheme to the tune of £63 million; and set up the £170 million covid winter grant scheme. This represents one of the largest and most comprehensive support packages in the world.
Sammy Wilson
I think everyone in this House must acknowledge the work that the Government have done to try to help people through the economic difficulties caused by the response to the pandemic. However, will the Minister accept that, even with the best will in the world, he cannot say that after April, everything is going to be rosy? We know there is going to be a long tail of businesses that have been damaged during this pandemic—damaged by the lockdowns—and people, especially those at the low-paid end of the market, are going to find themselves still in need of support. Therefore, it is wrong to say that somehow or other, things are going to be rosy from 1 April, and that the level of support required by the lowest paid in society will no longer be needed.
Will Quince
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I do not think anybody is saying that. We are saying that the situation remains unclear, so the Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular needs the agility to be able to act on the information at the time.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has an unenviable task, but I repeat the point that I made just a moment ago: he has a proven track record of stepping up to support the poorest and the most vulnerable and disadvantaged throughout this pandemic, and I have absolutely no doubt that he will continue to do so. Throughout this pandemic, the Chancellor has consistently acted with the necessary agility to support and wrap our arms around those who need it. The Chancellor has always said that, sadly, we cannot save every job or every business. That is why getting Britain back to work is the relentless focus of the Secretary of State, myself and the entire ministerial team at the Department for Work and Pensions. That is key to our national recovery and is why we are investing billions of pounds to secure the economic recovery. Through our plan for jobs we are injecting billions of pounds-worth of support and have launched a range of employment schemes and programmes.
To conclude, we have demonstrated during the pandemic that this Government are committed to supporting the most vulnerable in our society and to ensuring that people have the right level of support. Through universal credit and our plan for jobs, we are supporting people of all ages to gain the right skills and experience to support them back to work. We know how quickly things can change with this virus—the new variant has led to increased challenges—but there is now also real hope from the rapid vaccine roll-out, which promises to have a hugely positive impact on the way ahead and the effort to get back to normal and to get our economy growing again. As the Government have done throughout this crisis, we will continue to look carefully at the changing impact of the virus on public health and on our economy, to help to inform how we can continue to support people and give them the tools that they need to move into the workplace so that the country can build back better after the pandemic.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
For the avoidance of doubt, the Minister has not moved the selected amendment. The question before the House remains that already proposed, as on the Order Paper.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
I am pleased to have the opportunity to go into detail about why the SNP has been at the forefront of the campaign, led by the likes of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Save the Children and others, to keep the £20-per-week uplift to universal credit and extend it to legacy benefits.
I commend the UK Government for taking the action that they did to uplift universal credit by £20 per week. It has undoubtedly been an important step in protecting some—but not all—social security recipients, who otherwise would have fallen either into poverty or deeper into poverty during this pandemic. It was the right thing to do and it is right that it is now kept. Indeed:
“The universal credit uplift should continue for the foreseeable future. I would encourage the UK Government to make that commitment now and provide the reassurance many people are looking for.”
Those are not my words, but those of the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), leader of the Tories in Scotland, back in October.
What has changed since October? Both the health and the economic aspects of the pandemic have got worse. The need is still there, and I will tell the House part of the reason why. This is where I have to take slight exception to the Labour Opposition motion. It says that they want the UK Government to
“give certainty today to the six million families for whom it is worth an extra £1,000 a year.”
Although I support the motion, the uplift is worth a thousand pounds per year extra only if taken in isolation; actually, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has calculated that, if we look at cuts to social security since 2010, even with the £20 uplift, families unable to find work will receive, on average, £1,600 less per year in social security support than they would have done in 2011. That is even with the uplift. Those with children will receive £2,900 less. The contrast is even more stark for larger families with three or more children, who will lose £5,500 each year. That is part of the reason why this initiative is so important.
The UK Government seem intent on cutting the temporary uplift at the end of March, meaning that families will be a further £1,000 per year worse off. That would give the UK Government an unenviable record: if they go ahead with this cut, they will be responsible for cutting out-of-work support to its lowest level since 1992 and its lowest ever level relative to average earnings.Social security spending is normally counter-cyclical, so expenditure automatically rises during an economic downturn while revenue from taxation falls. This Government are trying to cut support during an economic downturn, when more people need greater support.
Let us remember what that means to the people who need the support: the 6 million households, in every constituency in the UK, but also the millions more on legacy benefits—disproportionately sick and disabled people—who have been cruelly denied the uplift. Last week I chaired an evidence session of the all-party parliamentary group on poverty, which I co-chair with the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). We heard powerful testimony from two women on legacy benefits who have not benefited from the uplift. I want to read some of what Michelle told us, because it should be heard today by colleagues across the House and Ministers on the Treasury Bench, especially the Chancellor. It should be heard because when she spoke, Michelle had millions of others behind her in the same position.
“My name is Michelle and I am currently a single parent to 2 children aged 12 and 7. I have been in receipt of legacy benefits for 7 years. Prior to this I was a working woman with a career in finance, a tax payer. Due to my health issues I currently receive the legacy benefits of income-based employment and support allowance, child tax credit and of course child benefit. April 2020 saw a rise of 1.7% to legacy benefits.
Living on social security is incredibly challenging for families; it provides less than minimum expectations of living. During the pandemic those challenges have been magnified with social restrictions and home schooling. £20 sounds so little but it means so very much. I became interested in why we had not received it.
In November of 2020 I emailed my...MP about the £20 uplift and legacy benefits, she in turn enquired with the Department of Work and Pensions about the situation. I was pleased to have received a response from both, but still somewhat downhearted at how little they understood the situation.
The main recommendation from my MP and the DWP was to consider applying for Universal Credit at this time to obtain the £20 uplift. Is the suggestion that people on legacy benefits request to be migrated to Universal Credit a feasible option you might ask? For me, to risk weeks of zero income for my family would be totally impossible and have knock-on effects of missed bills and potentially surviving on whatever charity we have not already exhausted. I cannot, as a responsible mother, take that risk.
I was also informed by my MP that ‘those on legacy benefits may have benefitted from other support such as mortgage holidays and income protection schemes’. She also mentioned increases to housing allowance. I am eligible for none of these and have no options to move home—I do not qualify for a council house despite being in an overcrowded home in poor repair that I can barely afford. I cannot afford to rent nor would I likely be accepted. These suggestions are not a solution to the problems we face.
As it stands, being prohibited from accessing the £20 uplift pushes me further into using credit for everyday expenses such as the weekly food shop and utilities. Therefore I pay interest on food, heat, water, light, shoes.
So what would £20 a week, equivalent to just under a...month of benefits which I calculate at £1,040 in total (over 10% of my income), mean to my household? It is hard to pick just one thing, there are numerous options. Food is usually one of the few bills parents have the ability to reduce in hard times, so to give more food security and reduce the reliance on cheap processed food would be a big benefit. Being able to keep the house warm would help my arthritis and the asthma suffered by my son and I so that it does not flare up in the damp. I could buy equipment for home schooling, or repair the kitchen tap, or not have to rely on hand-me-down clothes from friends and family who have already a shortened life from being worn. I could afford hair cuts for all of us.
Ultimately the £20 uplift would go directly towards the health and prospects of a generation of children, my children, who have so much potential, resilience, imagination and compassion due to their circumstances and the times we live in. And all we need to do is to support their parents to get those children to a point where they can build a good life for themselves. This will not happen if for the sake of £20 they are hungry, or cold or their needs aren’t met. The £20 uplift is the foundation of hope for children.”
I thank Michelle for being willing to share her experience last week and for agreeing to forward her words for me to read to you today. They speak of what happens to families who are not given adequate support, of the difference that £20 per week could, should and would make to those on legacy benefits, and of what will be ripped away in April from those on universal credit. When the discussion opened up, Michelle went on to say that even if the health effects of the pandemic are back under control by the end of March, which is likely to be a stretch, the economic impact for families on low incomes—like Michelle’s—will be felt for months, possibly years, to come.
Michelle will be paying back credit and interest on credit for months, even years, because she needed to purchase the minimum required to ensure that her children could learn at home and to pay for food and other essentials. That shows the deep holes in the social security safety net, both prior to and during the pandemic, that people are relying on credit cards for food, heating and clothes—basic essentials.
As I have said in this Chamber before, the uplift and social security rates in general should not be determined by the pandemic; that should be determined by what people need to live. The Office for Budget Responsibility expects more than 800,000 people to become unemployed in the second quarter of 2021, after the job retention scheme stops again. Will living costs be any less for those households? Will it be any easier for them than it is now with the uplift in place? Absolutely not.
Social security is supposed to be there for any of us when we need it, insuring us against hard times—like the NHS when we are ill. What Michelle and millions of others are telling us is that social security is not adequate to support families, who are having to rely on credit cards to buy food, heating and clothes. By holding off taking the decision any longer, the Government are letting down those families who have no certainty, no security and no means to plan.
Instead of analysing the needs of recipients and permanently uprating universal credit and legacy benefits by £20 a week, the Government have been flying kites about providing a one-off £500 grant, but only for some. That is the UK Government trying to do as little as they can get away with in an attempt to get through a difficult political situation. That would not in any way replace the long-term security that the uplift provided and will do nothing for those newly unemployed after the grant has been applied. Making the £20 per week uplift permanent and extending it to legacy benefits is the least they should be doing, particularly as it will not even make up for the cuts since 2010.
The UK Government have a choice: make the cuts to social security since 2010 a little less worse by making the uplift permanent and extending it to legacy benefits, in turn saving many families from poverty; or cut that lifeline further, making out-of-work support the least generous that it has ever been, impoverishing millions. Today, it appears that we may not even have a vote, most probably because if we did, there would be a significant rebellion by Government Back Benchers. If Ministers do not plan to oppose the motion, they must honour it as quickly as possible. They owe it to Parliament, but, most importantly, they owe it to Michelle and the millions of families such as hers on universal credit and legacy benefits who need this help as soon as possible.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The Opposition wind-ups will begin at 6.55 pm, the Government response at 7.05 pm and the Question put at 7.15 pm. There is a three-minute limit on all Back-Bench contributions.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate. I am proud of the Government’s response to the pandemic, supporting individuals and businesses by pumping in £280 billion of help, which the IMF and other global authorities have hailed as real and sound support for businesses and households. I was therefore disappointed to hear the Opposition spokesperson describe the £20 increase in universal credit, which has been an absolute godsend to so many during the pandemic, as turning into a cut. That is not the case, and it is important that everybody outside this place understands that.
The measures we have put in place are temporary, to support individuals and the country at large during the pandemic. Once the pandemic comes to an end and we return to some normality, of course the Government will not be subsidising 80% of employee wages, and of course the Government will not be paying businesses not to open. In the same way, we will go back to the same welfare support we have always offered; we have always made sure that those who deserve it get what they need to be supported.
If the Labour party is going to continue this extended increase in universal credit, will the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) tell us how it will be paid for? Will it be a 1% increase in income tax on everybody else who works? Will it be the axing of the £2 billion kickstart scheme, which will pay a six-month salary for those between the ages of 16 and 24, to give young people a chance to get into the workplace? Will it be the end of the £3 billion restart programme, which will provide support for 1 million unemployed people to find work? Will it be the undoing of the doubling of the number of work coaches in our jobcentres to 27,000, which would cost £1 billion? That is three items that the Opposition could axe to fund the £6 billion, or will it just be chucked on top of the national debt, which was already in difficulty but has now got out of control as a result of the pandemic? This would end up being paid for by young people, who have already suffered during the pandemic. To chuck more debt on to those young people is completely unfair and unjust.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde made a personal plea to new Conservative MPs from previously Labour-held seats. I have one too: please stand firm behind the Chancellor. Since 2010, there are 200,000 fewer people in absolute poverty, with 1,000 new jobs created a day and 1.2 million fewer workless households. If we turn every single temporary extension of help into a permanent one, we will not get the Treasury delivering the temporary measures that we badly need. I support the Government, I support universal credit, and I very much hope that the Opposition back down.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The problem is that the Government have lost the capacity to listen—to listen to their own Back Benchers, to the all-party Work and Pensions Committee, to people claiming universal credit and to the public. That was clear in the contemptuous dismissal of my Committee’s report on the five-week delay between applying for universal credit and receiving the first regular payment. The Government response to that report was published last week. In our meetings, we studied the evidence, sifted the material and listened carefully to what Ministers said in response. It is clear that the five-week delay is forcing people to food banks and pushing them into rent arrears. Social security is supposed to protect people from those things, not induce them as it does at the moment.
On a unanimous, all-party basis, my Committee recommended new starter payments equivalent to three weeks’ worth of standard universal credit, to tide people over in those difficult first few weeks. The Government’s response simply dismissed that recommendation and all the recommendations. Of course, the Government can reject our recommendations. They could carry out their own analysis and reach different conclusions. We recommended that the Department should do its own research on the impact of the five-week wait on food bank demand, rent arrears and claimants’ mental health. The response was:
“The Department will not be conducting nor commissioning any research.”
That was it. The Government do not want to know. They have lost the capacity to listen.
How can it be right that people have to wait until March to find out whether universal credit will be cut by almost a quarter at the end of March? How are struggling families supposed to plan? What justification can there be for having left jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance unchanged? Those claiming them are in exactly the same position as people claiming universal credit. People receiving the severe disability premium have not been allowed to switch to universal credit, even if they wanted to. Why have Ministers singled out disabled people for such harshness?
If the cut goes ahead, it will push child poverty up to levels we have not seen since 1997. There is no justification for going back to £72 per week. There was one very telling point in the briefing circulated by the British Association of Social Workers: the sharp increase in children in care, up from 60,000 to 80,000, with the enormous cost that that imposes, began when the cuts to benefits began. It is a false economy. The £20 a week should be left in place.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) [V]
The performance of universal credit during this crisis has been one of the truly stand-out successful parts of the Government’s response to the pandemic. The fact that our welfare system did not topple over in the way that some had predicted is to the enormous credit of the whole DWP organisation, and not least of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who has spoken from the Front Bench today. When it comes to the totality of our financial response to covid-19, I would challenge anyone to point to another country where there has been such an extensive range of support to protect families’ incomes. The measures that the Chancellor has put in place are historic and effective, and the evidence shows that they have reduced the impact of the crisis on those on the lowest incomes, with the poorest working households protected the most.
I appreciate that the kind of extra spending we have seen in the past year is beyond the capability of almost any Government to lock in permanently, but the question for us right now is whether the end of March this year—just 10 weeks away—is the right moment to begin unwinding this support, and specifically to remove the extra support for universal credit claimants. I do not believe that this is the right moment. I have been clear about the importance of the £20 per week uplift in supporting family incomes right at the bottom of the income scale. It is made an enormous difference to those who sadly lost their jobs during this crisis, but also to all those on the lowest wages who carried on working throughout the pandemic. We forget that more than a third of all universal credit claimants are working: they are the workers we support.
The truth is that the labour market is a horrible place for many people right now. Opportunities for people to find new work, increase their hours, boost their earnings and improve their family finances have been massively curtailed by the economic impact of the public health emergency, and that is the context for this discussion about cutting back the £20 a week uplift. That is why I believe the uplift is so important right now, and why I believe it must be extended for a further 12 months. I am not blind to the public expenditure pressures facing the Chancellor, and I have no qualms about defending difficult decisions when they are based on a clear plan with clear justifications, but the truth is that I do not believe we have such a plan right now. There is no decision yet, even with the proposed change being less than 12 weeks away.
People need certainty about their family finances for the coming year, so I find myself in agreement with the motion before the House tonight. I want to see the Chancellor commit to a further extension to the uplift, to 12 months, to enable us to put the pandemic well and truly behind us and to provide an opportunity for economic activity to pick up and for labour market opportunities to improve. I hope that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are listening.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I support the motion. My constituents have felt the impact of the pandemic particularly harshly. We have seen some of the highest rates of infection in the country, and the unemployment rate has shot up almost 12%, which is double the national average. As of last August, 16,000 households in Edmonton relied on universal credit and another 11,000 households remained on legacy benefits such as employment and support allowance. Those 11,000 households have been ignored by the Government and have received no £20 uplift. The Government must reconsider that arbitrary decision.
Every week I hear from constituents who are struggling to get by, even with the uplift. The £20 may be nothing to the Cabinet or to the Prime Minister, who complained that he could not afford to live on a salary of £160,000 a year, but for thousands of families across the country, that £20 a week is the only thing that stands between them and the food bank, or being able to pay their rent or heat their home. One of those people is my constituent Sarah, who claims universal credit and has a seven-year-old child. Universal credit only just covers Sarah’s rent and bills. If this cut goes ahead, she will have to choose between falling behind with her rent and staying warm. That is a choice no one should have to make.
That is why it is important to understand the uplift in context. It barely made a dent in the cuts to benefits the Government have made over the last 10 years. Even with the £20 uplift, UK unemployment and in-work benefits rank as some of the least generous in Europe. Only last week, the Prime Minister was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) about the £20 cut. In response, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to focus on jobs, not on welfare. Can you imagine how my constituents felt, hearing such a callous reply? This is not a choice between helping people in work and helping the unemployed, because people both in and out of work are claiming universal credit. Many are in low paid work, or may be unable to work due to illness or disability.
This motion argues for a change in priorities. By making this reckless cut to universal credit, the Government will be taking money out of the pockets of the people who need us the most during the biggest recession for hundreds of years. I ask the Minister to cancel the cut and to apply the £20 uplift to the thousands of people in receipt of legacy benefits.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Apologies for the slight delay in the audio over the video, but we heard everything that Kate had to say.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) [V]
I am proud of the incredible package of support that has been put forward by the Government to assist families and those struggling during these times. It has been as unprecedented in its scope and reach as this pandemic has been challenging. Over £280 billion has been brought forward to support people’s jobs and incomes through this emergency, and the package has been praised by the IMF as
“one of the best examples of co-ordinated action globally”.
That support includes the topic of today’s debate. The uplift in universal credit amounts to £1,000 extra a year. My views on this are on the record. I am glad to stand with my colleagues in the Northern Research Group when we say that now is not the time to consider any reduction in the uplift in universal credit. This uplift was brought in to help people through the extreme challenges of the pandemic, and those challenges have not passed. Indeed, as furlough ends, we may be entering even more challenging times.
More and more people have been pushed into the category of just about managing, and more and more people are now using universal credit than ever before. Indeed, the system and its flexibility is the unsung hero of these times, providing a safety blanket for so many. The uplift is not a handout, but rather a genuine hand up to those who need it and are trying to do the right thing. Alongside the rest of the support package offered by this Government, it has been compassionately delivered in the face of an incredibly challenging backdrop.
We have to recognise why we are here. This pandemic has fundamentally shaken society and given us reason to look again at ourselves and how we help our neighbours. The community response to covid has been remarkable. In my own constituency, the energy and dedication of local community resilience groups is something to behold. We see that same energy again in the volunteers, doctors and staff who are supporting the vaccination effort.
For all that, the virus risks taking communities like mine backwards, and we simply cannot allow the impacts of it to stretch beyond health and entrench disadvantage as well. This is even more the case as we look to recovery and levelling up post pandemic. It is absolutely right that decisions on spending are taken at the Budget—this is the normal and appropriate way of doing things—but I gently ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to consider these views carefully. The uplift is making all the difference.
Yesterday, I received an email from a constituent who had never used universal credit before and told me that she had never expected to, but she called it life-saving. This Government have done so much to support families through this crisis, but we should remember that phrase and we should be unafraid, at the Budget, of maintaining the uplift while the effect of this pandemic is still being felt. Doing so will be in keeping with the agile and comprehensive support the Government have delivered to families since the start of this pandemic.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Today is blue Monday, when people feel at their lowest ebb, and the actions of this true blue Government will add to that despair. The Government were elected on a promise to level up, but are cutting help at a crucial time—in the middle of a pandemic, with rising unemployment and restrictions not yet lifted. People worried about their finances and pushed to the edge by covid will see how much the Tories really care today in the way they are holding this debate and in their denial about wider universal credit problems.
This system has been running for eight years, but it costs more than the legacy system and actually helps fewer people. A third of applicants last year got nothing—turned away at the point of need. It has caused food bank usage to rise dramatically, and food banks tell me that the last thing people require in their support needs is a cut from Government now. Last year, more than 300,000 people got their first payment late, and that figure will be substantially higher this year according to the Government’s own figures. This is a Government whom the UN has shown have created a system that requires people to experience poverty, much of it through in-built delays to payments. Delays are not free: rent does not stop and the need to eat does not stop. The Government’s solution for the people facing those delays is debt. Last year, half a million people seeking help were told they could only have a loan, with the universal credit deficit in the Department for Work and Pensions reaching £1 billion.
Extra funds are available to help, if the Government fixed the problems. The National Audit Office has shown that more than £1 in every £10 spent on universal credit is erroneous in one way or another, and the Government have not done enough to fix that problem.
In Southwark, a third of the people on universal credit are in work. The constituents I have seen include a woman whose entire first monthly payment of universal credit was £17.68. I have been helping a man whose combination of furlough and universal credit does not even cover his rent and bills. These are people required to use a food bank from my constituency office in the heart of central London.
And the Tory response to these circumstances is to cut help. It is extraordinary. We see their true blue values in the wider debate on tackling poverty—values that led to the ludicrous insinuation from the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) that Government food vouchers were being used in “crack dens and brothels”, and the suggestion from his Tory colleague the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) that they were being used to buy alcohol, when they simply cannot be. More than 9,000 people in Redcar are on universal credit and deserve better representation. By contrast, their previous MP has been working in a food bank and setting up a book bank to help local children.
Then, of course, there is the Leader of the House, who has attacked UNICEF and charities helping children in Southwark. The fact that UNICEF and the UN are highlighting and seeking to alleviate poverty in Britain should shame our Government and secure action, but instead the Government attack the messenger. They pretend that their system is working, when it is failing people even with the uplift. They pretend that Labour would scrap the lot, putting out trash information because the truth is too painful for them to admit. They pretend to care. If they really did, they would be hammering on the Minister’s door and demanding an extension of help today, not a cut.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle). As a new MP, I am fascinated by the workings of this House and how Opposition day debates operate in attempts to further the political aims of the Opposition. These debates can certainly be passionate and emotive, but Opposition contributions seem at times to lack a grounding in reality, and they tend to whip up anxiety and despondency. I prefer instead to look at the details and facts—[Inaudible.] The evidence shows that the Government’s measures so far through the pandemic have been truly groundbreaking. [Inaudible.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Stop there, Sarah. We are going to do this just with the audio, so please start that sentence again.
Miss Dines
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is great to be able to see the—[Inaudible.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Sarah, we really cannot hear you. We will now go to James Murray but will try to get you back when we know we have a much better link.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Our country went into 2021 with soaring covid infection rates, the highest excess death rate in Europe, and having had the worst recession of any major economy. Whatever happens with the vaccination programme, we face many more months of restrictions and the economic impacts will be felt for years to come. Yet the Chancellor and the Government cannot see how wrong it is to take away £20 a week from families who, having been hit by 10 years of cuts to social security and incomes, are now struggling with the extra costs of food and bills in the middle of the worst economic crisis in 300 years. It is a disgrace that today’s debate is even necessary.
This cut to universal credit will hit millions of the poorest families across the country. In my constituency in west London, 44% of children are living in poverty. The cut will hit thousands of families in Ealing North, where over 4,300 households with children received universal credit in August last year, up by more than 1,800 since the start of last year.
The mother of one of those families, Clare, wrote to me on Friday night about today’s debate. She kindly agreed that I could read out a few sentences from her email. She explained that
“the £20 weekly boost is such a lifeline for us, especially for my family. I am a single parent and have an autistic son who is extremely vulnerable.
I also have severe COPD and this extra amount has allowed us to buy some good reading books and nice food which we could not afford without the £20 boost.
My son needs constant care, and just for him to have the books to read gives me some free time to relax and have some time to catch up on chores, and also my sleep as my son only sleeps 4 hours max at night.
I have also been able to bake some nice meals that are nutritious where I could not afford most of the ingredients before the extra was put in place.”
Families such as Clare’s and others across the country need that extra help. The Government must cancel this cut, extend the uplift across legacy benefits and show that they understand the impact that their approach to social security has on people’s lives.
The outbreak has confirmed how inadequate our social security system has become and how challenging it is for so many people to get by from one week to the next. The fact that the Government felt they had to increase universal credit by £20 a week at the outset of the covid crisis shows how insufficient it already was. Beyond the outbreak, we are clear that the system should be replaced with one that offers a proper safety net and decent support for all. Cancelling the £20 cut to universal credit will not right all that is wrong, but it will be a lifeline for millions as we come through this crisis.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We will now go back to Sarah Dines; we have an audio link. Sarah, you have the full three minutes, so start right from the very beginning.
Miss Dines [V]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is nice to be able to get through at last.
As a new MP, I have been fascinated by the business and workings of this House, and by how Opposition debates operate in an attempt to further the political aims of the Opposition. These debates can certainly be passionate and emotive. Contributions from Opposition Members seem at times to lack a grounding in reality and seem to be an attempt to whip up anxiety and despondency. I prefer instead to look at the details and facts behind these debates.
The evidence undoubtedly shows that the Government’s measures so far through the pandemic have been truly groundbreaking, with a range of measures worth more than £280 billion, including £6 billion in increases to welfare. In addition, there was £1 billion in catch-up funding for schools and vulnerable children, a £500 million hardship fund and £170 million to support food poverty this winter. It is simply untrue to characterise the Government as uncaring and as trying to plan cuts, as the motion says. As a Conservative, I believe that the way out of poverty is through work. The Government support that and have gone further than any Government, with a £30 billion plan for jobs. No past Labour Government compares.
Poverty is complex and multifaceted. It is not simply about welfare spending. It is about attainment, opportunities, addiction, social capital and mental health. The Labour party looks to an ever-increasing welfare state. I do not. I look towards supporting people to be free from the state and to work for themselves, and to supporting and catching them in a safety net when needed. That is precisely what the Government have done. They have supported the poorest households the most, and I am very proud of that. They have reduced the impact of the crisis on income losses by up to two thirds. This is a fantastic achievement. The temporary emergency uplift in universal credit of £1,000 a year will be considered by the Government, and the next steps will be set out fully in the Budget on 3 March 2021. To say anything different is opportunistic.
In Derbyshire Dales, many have impressed upon me that the Government support during the pandemic has been impressive. The Government have gone further than any peacetime Labour Government. I certainly will not vote for this Opposition motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Thank you, Sarah. We may not have been able to see you but we heard you loud and clear.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) [V]
Ten months ago, the shutters came down on businesses across our economy. People’s whole way of life changed overnight. The impact was unprecedented.
In answer, we needed an unprecedented response, and the Government delivered, as my hon. Friends have said, through a £280 billion support package. That support helped businesses across the country survive and save jobs through grants, the furlough scheme, the self-employed income support scheme and Government-backed business loans. That support helped families pay their bills and put food on the table through the council tax hardship fund, the covid winter grant scheme, increasing Healthy Start payments and establishing a £220 million holiday activities and food programme. That support gave people security over the future of their home through a six-month mortgage holiday and a temporary ban on eviction for renters.
The Government’s response has been praised by international bodies such as the IMF as one of the best support packages in the world, but even that was not able to save every job, so we invested billions to help people get back into work through apprenticeships, the kickstart scheme and one-to-one coaching. We have doubled the number of work coaches and injected billions of pounds into the welfare system, boosting universal credit and working tax credit by £1,000 a year for 12 months.
The Leader of the Opposition says he wants to scrap universal credit, yet today his party is arguing to keep this temporary increase. Surely it cannot have both. Labour’s proposal today would cost £6 billion per year. How would they pay for it? Would they increase income tax by 1% for 30 million taxpayers and put 5p on fuel duty? Would they increase VAT to at least 21%? Or would they raid one of our job creation schemes or existing support packages, or one of the new commitments we have already made—the commitment to increase the national living wage, worth £345 a year to someone working full time, or those to help 3.5 million families pay their council tax and to maintain the increase in the local housing allowance?
Those are big commitments, which are important to families up and down the country, including those who receive universal credit and working tax credits. It is right that we have made them and that we support people further, but how we do that should be properly considered and costed in the Budget.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
I support the motion. The Government should hang their head in shame for leaving people on universal credit living under the shadow of a potential cut in their benefits at the end of March. We face the worst recession of any European country, to a large extent due to the Government’s shambolic handling of the covid-19 pandemic. The Prime Minister’s failure to provide a clear strategy, some economic certainty and the adequate financial support that millions of people desperately need is a failure of leadership and of Government policy.
The scale of this crisis is massive and growing. In my constituency of Birkenhead, I represent two of the most deprived council wards in the country. Over 12,000 of my constituents claim universal credit, a 51% increase since the pandemic began. Countless others are in receipt of legacy benefits, and joblessness continues to soar. Every day, more people join the ranks of the unemployed. Even those who have kept their jobs are struggling to make ends meet; furloughed workers are forced to survive without a fifth of their pay packet each month.
My resolve on this issue has been strengthened by the deluge of messages from my constituents. The £20 uplift is a vital lifeline; it is as crucial to people’s financial health as the vaccine is to their physical health. So many constituents have told me of their fear and despair for their very survival if it is taken from them, but still the Government have refused to make the uplift to universal credit and working tax credit permanent or to confirm that it will be extended beyond April. At the same time, I believe that those excluded from the original uplift—those on legacy benefits—should also get a £20 a week rise.
Let me be clear: if, during the worst economic crisis in living memory, the Government go ahead and cut the £20 that has enabled so many people to get by, it will be a scandal. The Resolution Foundation estimates that if this cut goes ahead, the bottom fifth of earners will lose 7% of their income. Similarly, Citizens Advice predicts that 75% of the people it helps with debt issues will not be able to cover basic costs if the uplift is cut. It will mean more children going hungry, more families being unable to heat and light their homes, and more households facing the threat of eviction. It will mean human suffering on an epic scale in Birkenhead and across the country. By doing away with the uplift, the Government would take over £12 million from Birkenhead’s economy, with cash-strapped families spending less in our local supermarkets and independent stores.
“Build back better”? That is a hollow phrase masking economic vandalism. We must not let this Government pave the way to a new pandemic where poverty becomes the next deadly virus.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) [V]
I am proud to state clearly once more that the support the Government have provided to people and businesses during the pandemic has been unparalleled and unprecedented. It is one of the most comprehensive packages of support provided by any Government anywhere in the world, with £280 billion committed in support for jobs and incomes. The emergency response has included the furlough scheme; Government-backed loans; support for the self-employed; mortgage holidays; protection for renters; support for people with housing costs; and a £500 million council tax hardship fund. We extended the energy price cap, and provided a £750 million package to support charities and £1 billion in catch-up funding for schools and vulnerable children. The Government have increased the living wage, raised the national insurance threshold to boost pay, and, of course, provided a £7 billion injection into the welfare system to support millions of households.
We are the party of jobs and job creation. We know that work is the best route to recovery. We have put in place a £30 billion transformative plan for jobs to create jobs and enhance skills, because we know that work, not welfare, is the route to recovery and out of poverty. The Chancellor will make his economic announcements, including those involving universal credit, at the Budget in March. That is entirely right and proper. Long-term decisions of this nature have to be taken in the context of a range of economic levers and situations, and, of course, in the context of paying for them.
As this is an Opposition day debate, let us reflect just for a moment on an Opposition who want to abolish the universal credit system without which our welfare system would have collapsed, let alone coped with 1 million more applicants. They once told us that they would abolish boom and bust, and they opposed every measure to get the nation’s finances back on a sound footing after the financial crisis. And let us not forget that it was only a little over a year ago that they were campaigning to make Jeremy Corbyn our Prime Minister and John McDonnell our Chancellor.
There is no legislative impact from today’s vote and it has no bearing on policy or decision making. What my constituents need is a Government who will deliver real support and real change. That is what this Government are doing. That is what we will set out at the Budget in March.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Just a gentle reminder: please do not refer to current Members of Parliament by their names.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
We in Plaid Cymru have called consistently for the addition to universal credit to be made permanent and for it to be extended to legacy benefits. That is the bare minimum social security response required, with so many people experiencing such hardship. Millions of people in Wales and across the UK are facing many more months of want, with no guarantee that the pandemic will be over by March when this artificial deadline is to be imposed.
The Minister said he cannot predict the circumstances in April. Neither can I. That is exactly why the certainty of the uplift should be continued. It is no surprise that the Government want to dodge yet another U-turn, having been forced to extend free school meals after the swindle of food hampers for hungry kids and all the rest of it. But for the Government to cut the vital support that universal credit provides just to save face would be morally reprehensible. The Secretary of State should have the courage to say, “The facts have changed, I have changed my mind.”
If this cut goes through, over a third of Welsh households will be more than £1,000 a year worse off. This month the figure for universal credit in Arfon is up again at just shy of about 5,000; so less money for children in Arfon, and less for the basics of food, heating and clothing, piling further deprivation on to children already disadvantaged, possibly for life, by the disruption to their education. In Wales, even before covid-19, nearly a quarter of all people living in the country were in poverty, rising shamefully to three in 10 children.
The Government intend social security spending in Wales to be cut by around £250 million; less for Welsh parents to spend, but also £250 million taken out of the Welsh economy, so less for local businesses already reeling from covid.
It would be indefensible for a Westminster Government to harm the children of Wales in this way at the best of times. Doing so during the worst pandemic in memory, and after a decade of vicious austerity, is unforgivable. To lift Wales out of poverty, we urgently need the power to repair the deep cracks in our welfare system caused by years of both blue and red austerity. This deliberate cut and all the other welfare failures over decades are further proof that Westminster is not up to the job. We in Wales urgently need full powers over welfare to be devolved to our Senedd.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) [V]
I congratulate the Minister for welfare delivery on his opening statement and on the work that he and his Department have done to make sure that our most vulnerable have the safety net that universal credit provides. I also take this opportunity to congratulate and give credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who pioneered universal credit. It is worth repeating, as the Minister said, that if we had relied on the old system, the likelihood is that it would have fallen over during the global pandemic, so that credit needs to be recognised. Following on with that theme, we can look back to March, when the Chancellor was so proactive and reactive to the global pandemic to ensure that our residents and constituents had the support that was necessary. These were unprecedented times and I congratulate the Chancellor on that.
In my constituency, I have 2,800 people on universal credit. That has more than doubled compared with pre-covid times. The temporary universal credit uplift was part of the armoury of support that the Government have given. One point that I want to stress to the House is that language is really important. If we as a Government and policy makers introduce things temporarily, but there is an expectation that it will be permanent, that will have a significant impact on finances.
At the Budget in just over six weeks is absolutely the right time to be having this conversation. We cannot look at policy making on a stand-alone, piecemeal basis, as the Opposition motion proposes. The £280 billion-worth of measures that have been introduced since the start of the pandemic is unprecedented. One thing that really worries me is how we will look to afford it. It is worth reiterating that we as politicians and Members of the House are purely custodians of other people’s money—the taxpayers. We need to remain pragmatic, and the continued economic uncertainty means that leaving these decisions to 3 March is appropriate. I will leave it at that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I look forward to the rest of the debate.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
Universal credit has significant design flaws going back to its inception in 2012, but drastic cuts in social security spending in 2015 added to that. By the beginning of the pandemic last year, approximately £33 billion had already been cut in support for working-age people, with single parents and disabled people particularly affected.
Universal credit claimants have been driven into debt and rent arrears, and the increase in food bank demand is attributed to UC’s introduction. The associated poverty is driving negative impacts on health. For example, a peer-reviewed report published in The Lancet last March showed that people who moved on to universal credit experienced clinically significant psychological distress as a result. Another report from The BMJ showed that the hostile and demeaning universal credit system worsened physical and mental health.
As the covid crisis hit, not everyone could work from home and the low-paid and vulnerable sectors, such as hospitality and leisure, have been most affected, driving the increase in UC claimants. We know that not only is this health crisis far from over, but neither are the impacts on the economy and jobs. People need reassurance that in their time of need an adequate safety net is there. In my constituency, more than half of the 14,633 claimants now claiming UC are doing so as a result of the pandemic. Many have contacted me about the debate, but not just those relying on UC have written to me, which reflects the recent poll showing that 74% of the public support the increase in UC and want to see it extended.
I chair the APPG on universal credit, and we held an inquiry into the impact of covid on claimants last spring and made a number of recommendations to the Chancellor in November, including retaining the £20 per week uplift, as well as extending it to legacy benefits and replacing the five-week wait with an initial non-repayable starter payment.
We know from Save the Children that potentially 200,000 more children will be living in poverty if the uplift is not extended. The Resolution Foundation has estimated that by 2024 an additional 730,000 children will be living in poverty, but even if the uplift continues, people are still struggling. We know that one in five on UC always run out of money, compared with 8% of those not reliant on UC. We know that half a million people have accrued rent arrears since the start of the pandemic, with an average of £730 debt. The ban on evictions also runs out at the end of March. Covid saw those already struggling to stay afloat bear the brunt of the economic and health burden. We cannot—we must not—let them down. We must extend the UC uplift.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) for the way he set out the case from the Front Bench. The facts speak for themselves. In my constituency, 9,147 of the lowest paid people across Audenshaw, Denton, Dukinfield, Reddish and the Heatons will be affected—people who are struggling and many who are relying on this money to get them through the current crisis.
The Trussell Trust has said that cutting universal credit could increase already high food bank use by another 10%. I will let that figure sink in. Universal credit is an in-work benefit, too, replacing the previous working and child tax credits. In that context, it is unthinkable to take £20 a week or £1,000 a year away from families. The Resolution Foundation states that the cut would see the poorest households lose 7% of disposable income. The Child Poverty Action Group states that the £20 uplift is essential
“to ensure low-income families with children receive the support they need”.
Last September, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that the cut risked bringing 700,000 more people, including 300,000 more children, into poverty. These are staggering and, frankly, frightening figures that should shame us all. We are better than this. We must urge the Chancellor to stop the cut and support those in need.
I know this motion has been brought to the House by the Labour Opposition, and politics dictates that we should take partisan lines—I get that those are the rules of the game, having been an MP for almost 16 years; I have seen it time and again—but this is not a game; it is millions of people’s lives. It is our children’s future, and sometimes we need to unite across the political divide to make a stand and do the right thing.
This political spin that abstaining deprives Labour of the opportunity to incite “hatred and bullying” towards Conservative MPs is just ratcheting up that game-playing. The only anger will be because this is not a game for 6 million families; it is real life, and the best way to remove that anger is to do the right thing and vote for the motion to stop the cut. All Members know the cut is wrong. Six million families are depending on us. I know I have represented the 9,147 who will be affected by this cut in Denton and Reddish. I oppose this cut, and I will vote against it if there is a vote tonight.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) [V]
The last 12 months have been hugely difficult for many of our constituents as covid-19 has ravaged our communities. For those who have struggled to make ends meet, the £20 uplift has relieved pressures on household expenditure. Certainly on the Government Benches, there is not a single Member who does not want to support their constituents throughout this difficult period. That is why I consider this motion by the Labour party nothing more than a cynical attempt to score political points. Frankly, we should be above that; this issue is too important. Our constituents deserve better.
Throughout the course of the pandemic, we have seen the Government proactively provide support to those who have needed it, when they have needed it most—support measures worth £280 billion, including the coronavirus job retention scheme, £170 million to support food poverty over the winter period, a £500 million hardship fund, £6 billion in increases to welfare and £670 million to help people pay their council tax bills; along with an increase of almost £1 billion last year to increase the local housing allowance programme. This has all helped to ensure that there has been a degree of security for my constituents in their most anxious moments.
The Chancellor’s packages have been recognised across the world—including by organisations such as the IMF, the Bank of England and the OBR—as world-leading and crucial to shoring up the economy and the livelihoods of those who have been worst hit by this pandemic. It is incumbent on all of us to consider the best path to economic recovery out of the pandemic for those who need it most. There is no doubt in the mind of a Conservative that a healthy economy will lessen the need for universal credit in our society. A strong economy will deliver the jobs required to give people the stability and security that they need to thrive and succeed. Nobody should consider the impact of good employment on welfare to be insignificant.
The introduction of the uplift to universal credit was the right thing to do at the time. Given the economic and social situation, I absolutely supported it. I commend the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for ensuring that universal credit has worked smoothly and for supporting those who have needed it most.
Let me tell those watching who are not familiar with parliamentary procedure that today’s motions are not binding. They do not change anything; they do not protect lives and they do not protect the poorest in our society. If the last Opposition day debate is anything to go by, this debate will be used by many as an excuse to abuse some of my colleagues and friends, including with physical threats—as happened last time—to themselves and their families. Such threats should be condemned across the House. I therefore believe that it is not right to engage in the Opposition’s political games, not least because they want to abolish universal credit, which would leave the future for so many uncertain and reduce their support. “Gotcha” politics will not solve the scourge of poverty in our society, and the Chancellor should be given space to make the decisions that he needs to when he presents the Budget.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
I thank our colleagues in the Labour party for bringing forward this debate to try to provide security and reassurance to those across all our constituencies who have relied on this uplift at a time of increased costs and fewer economic opportunities.
The number of universal credit claimants in my constituency has increased by 145% in the year to November. That includes many people who have not been reached by furlough and self-employment support. The Prime Minister stated last week:
“What we want to see is jobs…and…growth”.
We all do, but between covid and Brexit that is simply not a realistic solution at present. Wanting a better economic climate is not going to meet the basic needs of those on universal credit, and it ignores the fact that 40% of claimants are already in work.
The compound economic crises that we are facing are driving more people into needing the safety net of social security. For public health reasons we need more people to stay at home, but the social security net is already being found to be unfit for purpose. Existing cuts are already biting. Lone parents—just one group—have lost around 10% of their income. One participant told the Women’s Regional Consortium Northern Ireland:
“The amount allocated to us just isn’t sufficient for basic living costs. We can’t have the heating on because we can’t afford the gas. Thank God for food banks, otherwise eating would have been much worse.”
I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the work of the South Belfast food bank, as well as the churches and the sporting organisations—including Bredagh GAC, Rosario football club and Ormeau Road boxing club—who have come together to meet the need in my constituency.
Unfortunately, in 2015 Northern Ireland returned welfare powers to Westminster. I regret that, despite pledges, hundreds of people are subject to benefit cuts without mitigation. I am urging the Department for Communities to bring forward legislation to stop tens of thousands more people falling into that gap, and to provide top-up payments for the two-child tax credit rule.
Medical experts make it clear that the crisis will not end neatly at the end of March. The economy will likely experience disruption throughout 2021. The uplift was the right thing for the Government to do, and I commend them for doing it, but by their own logic, there is no case for removing it now. That this change would save a lot of money is not in doubt, and I know that there are consequences to borrowing, but there are consequences here for the economy, too. The evidence shows that universal credit is spent almost immediately, so this cut would be a loss to local shops precisely when they need it most.
To finish, I will borrow a phrase from Marcus Rashford: people in poverty matter. The Chancellor seriously misjudges those people if he thinks that he can mislead them into thinking that an up-front payment is better simply than nothing. The one-off payment is an attempt to solve a political problem, but it does absolutely nothing to solve the problems of those families relying on this uplift.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I am grateful to the Opposition for bringing forward this debate, because it gives Conservative Members an opportunity to talk about the wide-ranging and comprehensive support that we provided to the lowest-income and most vulnerable families in this country. We did so not just through the £20 universal credit uplift, but through the furlough scheme, which we know is critical to keeping that vital link to work—the sustainable route out of poverty—through the hardship fund, through the winter support grant and through the catch-up schemes. This support has been provided to the families who most need it—and in a timely fashion.
It is worth dwelling on a point that the Minister and others have made: at points during this crisis, we had 100,000 people a day applying for universal credit, yet nine out of 10 applicants were paid on time—a fact that I hope to see recognised by more Opposition Members. In that context, it is inexplicable that we would now seek to scrap universal credit, and it is worth dwelling for a second on what we inherited from the Labour Government. It can be summed up in two simple words: welfare trap. We had a welfare system that was inexplicable, with six interacting benefits. If a person went into work, they actually lost money. There was an effective tax rate of 90%.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that matter. The politics of the taper rate is one of the fundamental points in any welfare system. Under universal credit, the taper rate is 63%, but that does not account for income tax or national insurance, so the withdrawal rate is effectively 75p in the pound. She did not give the full picture. Universal credit, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, reduces the deduction rate from over 80% for some families, but it increases the deduction rate for other families. There are more families facing a deduction rate of between 60% and 80% than before, so the situation is more complicated. It depends on a person’s circumstances, including the hours they work and whether they rent. Putting this in binary terms is not, I am afraid, correct. We should look at the detail, because that is what the debate deserves.
Laura Trott
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that there is a debate to be had about the right level of the taper rate, but I think we can all agree that it is better that people should want to earn more by working, and that the previous situation was worse. We have moved forward, but there is always more progress to be made, and it is important that we make progress. I think the new system is better than the last. We have a welfare system in which it pays, for the most part, to go to work. We are trying to provide a safety net, not a trap; that is the difference between now and what we had.
Today, we are discussing a complex question. The hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members will know that getting people out of poverty is more complicated than just giving them money. That is necessary, but not sufficient in and of itself. We need to provide re-training, help to get into work, and support for the whole family in the numerous challenges that they may face. It is absolutely right that this decision be taken in the round at a fiscal event, when we can think about how to look at all these things, and, crucially, how we pay for them.
The Opposition said this was not the time to think about fiscal events. We have shown that we will throw the kitchen sink at protecting the most vulnerable during this crisis, but that does not mean that we can make uncosted spending pledges. We need to think very carefully about how we deploy our money. That is not to say that a debate should not take place, but we should think about this in the context of our wider spending pledges, and in the context of making sure that we target support at the most vulnerable in society. I am very glad that, at the outset, all of us, wherever we sit in this House, recognised that we are all here to do that.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) [V]
For many families across my constituency who have lost their jobs and have seen their incomes fall and their costs rise, the increase to universal credit has been a lifeline throughout this crisis. It has kept them from being dragged into poverty and prevented them from joining the thousands across Bradford who, because of low pay, insecure work, high costs and under-employment, sadly struggle to get from one day to the next. Despite the benefit from this small increase, which meant families did not have to worry as much about putting food on the table, heating their home or keeping a roof over their head, the Government are still intent on cutting universal credit from April.
I represent a constituency where half of children are growing up in deprivation, so I know just how destructive poverty can be for families, and to children’s chances. It hurts their education and development, and actively harms both their mental and their physical health. I cannot be clearer about just how damaging it would be for the 13,000 households on universal credit in my constituency if the Government were to pull this small but steady foothold, which has granted much-needed financial breathing space. It would cripple household finances that have already been stretched to breaking point, and plunge hundreds of families in Bradford into a state of poverty, in which they simply would not know how to make their incomes last the week.
During what is the worst recession in 300 years, which has seen many more families who never expected to find themselves relying on universal credit dependent on the Government to get by, families need security in their incomes. I have seen an extension of the uplift described as a “splurge”, a “stunt” and a “waste”, but let me be clear: ensuring that people can afford to eat, keep a roof over their head and heat their home is never a splurge, never a stunt and never, ever a waste. It is a basic duty of any good Government to look after the poorest and most vulnerable in society. The decision to cut universal credit shows just how far removed from that duty this Government have become, and how they still have not grasped that it is the lowest paid and the poorest who are being hit hardest by the coronavirus pandemic.
We cannot escape the fact that there are many flaws with universal credit, but the choice for the Government today is clear: either they vote for the Labour motion and provide low-income families with certainty and security, or they choose to write off another generation and consign yet more families and children to a life of poverty and deprivation.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) [V]
I thank the staff at the Department for Work and Pensions for the way in which universal credit has stood up to the pressure of the coronavirus pandemic. In the past year, UC has supported more than 5 million households—a level of demand that would have crippled the previous legacy benefits system. An agile, targeted welfare system is of immense value to society, and particularly to the 3,000 families in Brecon and Radnorshire who depend on universal credit. I therefore firmly reject the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, who seeks to scrap universal credit altogether. Now more than ever, it is needed to support those who have been hardest hit by the pandemic.
The International Monetary Fund has commended the UK Government for their “aggressive” economic response to the pandemic, which they have called
“one of the best examples of coordinated action globally”.
More than £280 billion has been provided to safeguard jobs and incomes, through measures such as the furlough scheme, the self-employed income support scheme and bounce back loans. As the number of vaccinations increases, the fight against coronavirus will move to the economic front.
There is no question but that we have a moral responsibility to ensure that the safety net is as strong as possible, but we cannot be ignorant of the cost to the taxpayer. Maintaining the £20 uplift will require a significant tax hike, which will cost anyone earning £30,000 around £175 a year, and every driver an extra 5p per litre of fuel. Universal credit is just one tool for lifting families out of poverty for good. I am proud that, rather than just giving people money, this Government are putting their shoulder to schemes such as kickstart and restart, and are doubling the number of work coaches, who give people intensive support to get back to the workplace. This is how we tackle poverty and eradicate it for good.
It is a sorry situation that in the middle of a pandemic, the Labour party uses its time sowing uncertainty and confusion. Constituents have already been in touch with me to ask whether tonight’s vote will reduce the money they can expect to receive this week. I want to be very clear: it does not. The Opposition should be thoroughly ashamed of playing on the fears of those whom they seek to represent.
I will take no lessons from the Labour party on poverty. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, even before the pandemic, one in four people in Wales lived in poverty, including 140,000 children. Welsh Labour has run Wales for 21 years, and still, in the words of the First Minister himself, we are “older, poorer and sicker”, so I will take no lectures from it on poverty.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) [V]
The best reason to shut down food banks that I ever heard was given to me by a woman who ended up starting her own food co-operative—a mum of four. Following the Osborne benefit cuts, money was just too tight. She was advised to go to the local food bank, but when she got there, she sat outside and cried. She could not go in; she just could not do it. That is why no one in our country should have to beg for food, and why there has been public outrage about child hunger during this crisis. It is wrong.
However, today’s debate is not about Marcus Rashford’s child food poverty campaign; it is not about scrappy food parcels, or whether a child ought to be able to survive for two weeks on dry pasta and a loaf of white bread. Today’s debate is a result of what happens if we ask ourselves why that campaign exists at all. It is a result of daring to ask the bigger question: “Why do we have food banks in our country?” If we ask ourselves what the cause of poverty is, we reach the following conclusion: too many people have jobs that pay too little, or for family reasons cannot work enough to pay for the necessities of life. This trend has been exacerbated greatly by the covid-19 pandemic, but it was set from 2010 onwards. Rising self-employment and uncertain, often low, income have undermined our battle against low pay; covid has made this 100 times worse, and many of those facing poverty are families with only one wage coming in, or where disability affects work prospects. That is why the social security system needs to support them, and make sure the indignity of food banks is no more.
What is the truth about social security today, and why does it fail to protect? Child benefit—the most dependable, easy-to-process family support—was cut in real terms by 22% from 2010 to the end of the decade. Proportionally, that was the largest welfare cut of all, and it fell on our children, meaning that all families with children have been squeezed for a decade. For those in low-paid work, the consequences have been severe, as we have heard from other Members. That is why we should welcome the extra money for families in this crisis, which went some way towards addressing the problems created over the past 10 years. I want the Government to go much further now, with no third or fourth child being sent the message by our country that the state does not care about them. Every child should be invested in through child benefit, and should never have to see their parents in distress because of an enforced visit to a food bank.
The contribution principle that Beveridge set up in our social security system is being undermined. We pay in when we are able and we take out when we need, but a generation is now being robbed of that promise. If the Minister does not know this, let me tell him that the anxieties we face in childhood echo on through our lives; they never leave us. That is why protecting our children is always the right thing to do.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) [V]
Opposition day debates are allocated to the Opposition by the Government, and in the Opposition’s social media noise, they do not mention that on such days, while matters are debated and discussed, they are not decided on in the same way as they are through the ordinary legislative process. They are not backed up by White Papers or detailed policy, yet the Opposition rely on the public quite understandably not knowing the difference.
After the last Opposition day debate, my Labour predecessor dutifully posted the centrally supplied Labour attack graphics, and had to wade into the vitriolic comments under his Facebook post to ask posters to take care with their language, to which the first reply was:
“can we say Scum? Asking for a friend”.
This is just a mild example of what happened as a result of the last debate—a direct consequence of the efforts of the Labour party to stoke up an emotionally charged atmosphere at a difficult time. I can cope with that bad language, but I know that colleagues faced worse, including threats that required police intervention. So I hope the Opposition will consider carefully—I heard their spokesman’s comments earlier—the impact of their choice of language when they present the reality of this non-binding vote. It would also be helpful if the Opposition could present a motion that is consistent with their Front-Bench policy. Their stated aim is to abolish universal credit. What would that achieve? Chaos. Imagine if Department for Work and Pensions staff, plunged into an unexpected epidemic, had been forced to try to operate a number of different benefit schemes. The welfare system would have struggled to cope. The resilience of the system is a tribute to the sterling work of DWP staff, who have faced a challenge, stepped up and met it. I thank all the staff at the jobcentres that serve Gedling. I have been inspired by their enthusiasm over the last months.
In the last Opposition day debate on free school meals, I said that, although Labour might claim a moral victory, it did not address the fundamental issues, which the Government had to now address. Very much the same applies today. This Government are taking action: the hardship fund; the covid winter grant scheme; the kickstart scheme; the restart scheme; millions of pounds of support for councils to help the poorest; the holiday activities and food programme; the flexible childcare fund; the furlough scheme; bounce back loans; rates relief; VAT deferrals; protection for renters; mortgage holidays; and much, much more. This is all supporting Gedling residents during these difficult times. While Labour plays on people’s emotions, it offers no solutions, and this Government are offering to support the most vulnerable in society. I know they will continue to do so at the next Budget, when spending matters will, quite properly, be announced. So in this debate, the division is clear, and I know which side I am on.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) [V]
I wish to speak, albeit briefly due to the time available, in favour of the motion tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary and other hon. Friends.
Let me start by saying that at the very least the Government should rule out the cutting of this uplift in April and give certainty to families across the country. We know that the UK is in the midst of one of the most deadly global pandemics in a century and we are currently at the peak of the second wave. £20 a week is making a huge difference to the 8,306 people in receipt of UC in my constituency and to 6.2 million families across the UK. In many cases, it is making the difference between being able to put food on the table and not.
We know that times are incredibly tough. Our food banks are busier than ever, trying to support as many people as they can. In my constituency, we have a range of other voluntary organisations and community groups offering support with meals, and it is abundantly clear that families need more support, not less, although it seems that that is not clear to the Government. For them to consider this cut in the best of times would be callous, but to do it at this time, arguably the worst of times, is an absolute disgrace and plain cruel. Let us make no mistake: this cut will hit Britain’s poorest households and the Government must think again.
It appears that the Government are looking to make low-income families pay as a result of the Government’s incompetence and chronic mismanagement of the pandemic, which has caused Britain to suffer the worst recession of any major economy. This will make matters worse. In Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney alone, this cut will mean a £7.8 million per annum loss to the local economy. We all remember when the Chancellor said at the start of the pandemic that the Government would do “whatever it takes” to support people through this crisis. How hollow those words sound now. Not only have the Government created the worst recession in any major economy, but they are now failing to take action to stop children and families going hungry. I hope that the Minister will tell us today what it will take for the Government to get real, see sense and stop this callous cut to the most vulnerable families in the country.
We also know that since the beginning of the pandemic the Government have chosen to exclude people on so-called “legacy benefits”, including the disabled, the sick and carers, from the extra support given to those on universal credit—the Government said it would take too much time to update the systems needed. They have had 10 months to put this right but, instead of trying to solve one problem, they are set to go headlong into creating another, affecting millions of families. We heard examples of this from our local citizen’s advice bureau just this morning. I urge all Members across the House, on all Benches, to put the needs of the most vulnerable families in the country first and to support the motion.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) [V]
Welfare dependency is an invidious culture that I am proud this Government do not champion, or aspire to. The universal credit uplift was always temporary. It was part of the generous package from this Government to ensure that all parts of society were supported during the pandemic.
The better conversation and debate we should have been having today is about job creation and the Government’s £30 billion plan for jobs—helping people who have lost their job due to coronavirus to find new jobs, helping the over-50s bounce back quickly, helping young people into work, helping people to retrain and find new, well-paid jobs, and giving people the security of a regular income. After all, is that not the whole purpose of universal credit—giving people the means and support they need to get back into work? Never more is that important than now.
The Government are devoting more resources to this than any Government in recent history, and I challenge anyone to say otherwise. They have delivered £28 billion of support already, the furlough scheme, £1 billion in catch-up funding for schools and vulnerable children, a £500 million hardship fund, £117 million in support to tackle food poverty this winter and over £6 million in increases to welfare. At the beginning of the pandemic, the UK economy was in a good place. That is why the Chancellor is right to wait for more clarity on the national, economic and social picture before assessing the best way to support low-income families moving forward.
Those are the conversations that my constituents want to hear, not ones of political expediency or ambiguity. On the one hand, the Opposition call for this debate, as they think the universal credit uplift should be permanent, at a cost of approximately £6 billion a year, which would mean a 1% increase in income tax for 30 million taxpayers and a 5p increase in fuel duty. Where is the financial prudence in any of that? Bizarrely, the Leader of the Opposition calls to scrap universal credit, leaving people with no means of financial or practical support to get themselves back into work. Today’s debate smacks of political opportunism, with straplines that only serve to make headlines and do not help those most in need.
Where there is no ambiguity is in the simple fact that since 2010 this country has voted in all three successive elections for a Conservative leadership to lead this country, and there is a reason for that. It is in this Government that people can trust. This is a time to allow the Government to continue with that trust—a Government who will continue to stand behind families who need our support at the time of this country’s greatest need. Getting people back into work is what will see us lift this country out of this crisis, not political opportunism and not welfare dependency.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) [V]
The Liberal Democrats fully support the £20 uplift to universal credit and making it permanent, and we will vote in favour of the motion accordingly. It is the right thing to do to ensure that our most vulnerable have a safety net that works for them and their dependants. It is the right thing to do to invest in our social security system and the best way to help people to escape from poverty and help stimulate our recovery. And it is the right thing to do to act now and give families certainty, rather than the approach favoured by the Government, which is to leave families in the dark, in the middle of the greatest economic crisis this country has ever seen.
The coronavirus pandemic has transformed how so many people see our welfare system. People who never thought they would interact with the system are now doing so and will need to continue doing so beyond April. We should therefore not be debating whether we should take away the vital £20; we should be debating whether we can go further. Hundreds of thousands of people receive legacy benefits and many of them are unable to transfer to universal credit. They were excluded last year from the Chancellor’s uplift on an entirely arbitrary basis. This group includes many disabled people and their carers. How can we leave them out of the uplift at a time that is difficult for so many? What happened to “no one left behind”? What happened to “whatever it takes”?
The Government have failed to act on this issue, and my North East Fife constituents who claim legacy benefits feel forgotten. That is why we support uplifting legacy benefits and backdating the uplift to April 2020.
It is the same story for carers. Unpaid carers are doing a remarkable and important job in very difficult circumstances. They deserve our support, but there is an historic deficit in the support available to unpaid carers. Carer’s allowance is just £67.25 a week, the lowest benefit of its kind. That is why it is vital that the Government immediately uplift carer’s allowance, too, in line with the uplift to universal credit. Too often, carers have been an afterthought for many politicians. It is time to stand up for them.
As more and more people access universal credit, it is also high time that we looked at the areas where it is failing to deliver. Last year, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a report looking at universal credit in Glasgow. The report highlighted that many people who access universal credit suffer from mental ill-health, but even more damningly, it said that even among people who did not have a mental health condition, many still suffered anxiety caused by their engagement with universal credit. The reasons include challenges in navigating the online system and a lack of face-to-face support with this, poverty and financial insecurity due to the waiting period for the first payment, the stress of managing budgets between payments, housing, conditionality and the fear of sanctions. The whole point of conditionality is to get people back to work, but right now there is simply little prospect of that. The Government have failed to suspend conditionality during the current lockdown even though they suspended it between March and July last year. On the “digital by default” approach, the majority of claimants access the system on mobile technology, and this has issues for my rural constituency.
In short, there is much work to be done.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) [V]
As the Prime Minister has said countless times since last March, when the difficult but necessary decision was taken to fundamentally change the way we have all had to live our lives, we as a Government would put our arms around the people of this country. The support has been phenomenal—not just financial but genuine engagement across every Department to support our most vulnerable. It is a proud record that we as Conservatives will stand on. The International Monetary Fund has said that the UK response is
“one of the best examples of coordinated action globally”.
The key aim has always been to protect as many lives and livelihoods as possible, to give certainty in uncertain times and, even now, continued hope beyond this moment of incredible national achievement in rapidly rolling out the vaccination programme. When we emerge from this pandemic, it is important that we have not simply survived but have the building blocks in place to thrive again. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will be looking at the right measures at the right time, but we are not there today.
In the meantime, the extensive support has included the temporary and emergency £1,000 per year uplift to universal credit. That is just one pillar of support, but there is much, much more. We have funded local authorities to help families of all ages in difficult circumstances with the covid winter grant scheme—not just food vouchers but help with bills too. It is right that we care deeply for those who struggle most, but it is also right that we are mindful of those who sit just outside the support that universal credit offers. We are asking them to support all these measures through taxation. I look forward to hearing from the Chancellor how he will strike this important balance in the coming weeks and months. As so many have done, I wish to recognise the excellent and professional delivery of the universal credit system overseen by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, her team, and the amazing people working in jobcentres.
Let me add a gentle note on Opposition day motions, if I may. Members on both sides of this House want what is best for every member of our communities. Making political capital and amplifying social media storms sadly comes with risk. Once, in October last year, could be deemed, if being generous, as unforeseen; twice has the dishevelled appearance of carelessness. While the Opposition seek to cause division and worry and prey on the fearful, this Government will calmly continue to deliver.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
We have before us today a simple motion, and I am a simple kind of guy, so I am going to be quite straightforward in indicating that I will be supporting it. It is supported by a majority of people in this country: my union, Unite, carried out a survey indicating just that. There is, however, a wider debate to be had, though not today, about values and principles. Are we a society that is accepting of homeless people freezing to death on our streets? Are we a society that is accepting of millions of people being reliant on food banks for their next meal? Are we, as a society, prepared to accept that one in three children are receiving holiday hunger hampers in the form of food parcels?
Almost 6 million families are dependent on universal credit, and 40% of them are in work; they are in receipt of in-work benefits. Government Members are accusing Opposition MPs of being partisan, but sadly, the lives of the poorest and most vulnerable people in society only seem to concern the Conservative leadership when they risk bad headlines. Government Members—and that includes the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—must know the poverty and hardship that will be caused by failing to uprate universal credit.
At the outset of coronavirus, anticipating millions of new universal credit claimants, the Government announced a 12-month £20-a-week uplift. This was not an altruistic gift; it was a political calculation. The Minister said that he welcomed today’s debate. Frankly, I do not expect the Government to change their position today, because the Government will welcome three months of uncertainty and arguing against retaining the uplift. If they were to concede today, the Opposition would have more time to focus on the national scandal of the Government’s covid response. The Government are too busy making political calculations affecting the lives of more than 10,000 people in my constituency of Easington who are in receipt of universal credit.
I expect the Government will U-turn on universal credit, but it will not be today or next week. The Prime Minister should stop playing politics with people’s lives and start governing in the national interest for the good of the country. He should U-turn today, consolidate the uplift and give some security to the millions of people who have been let down by this Government.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) [V]
Yesterday I took the unusual step of posting to my Facebook an account of what an Opposition day actually is. Usually I like to focus on local issues in Heywood and Middleton rather than process. However, after the abuse, threats and vitriol generated by the last series of Opposition day debates, I felt it necessary to get ahead of the misinformation that will doubtless follow on social media after today’s debate, despite the fine words from the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). He should consider carefully the intemperate language used by some of his colleagues in the debate so far.
People deserve so much better than political opportunism. That is why I am genuinely saddened by the tenor of today’s debate, which is not just disingenuous but painfully ironic. It remains the position that the official Opposition want to scrap universal credit altogether. Whether it is furlough, covid winter grants or the stay on evictions, the schemes that the Government have put in place to support people through this pandemic have been refined and adapted to meet the changing circumstances we face, and so too with universal credit. The truth is that we simply do not know what the next few weeks hold or what the best solution will be. The responsible thing to do is to assess the situation as we approach the Budget, which is why the Secretary of State is actively reviewing next steps.
Uprating UC represents £4.6 billion of additional spending to support those impacted by coronavirus, and the rapid roll-out of funds must, by any measure, be considered a success. Despite an almost two-thirds increase in the number of claimants, 96% of new claimants got their full payment on time. Staff at the DWP deserve our thanks and praise, and I associate myself with reports from the Work and Pensions Committee and the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee highlighting their successes and the fact that the digital structure of the benefit has enabled the system to withstand the sudden increase in demand, where the legacy system would have struggled severely. We know that the official Opposition want to do away with UC, despite its effectiveness during this national crisis, but we have yet to hear what they would do or, more importantly, where the money would come from. That has been the hallmark of their behaviour throughout—taking no firm positions and offering no constructive alternatives.
It is at times like this, when we are up against it, that we find out what people are really made of. I have been genuinely humbled by the selflessness of my constituents and proud of my colleagues, many of whom are learning the job as we deal with the pandemic. I am deeply saddened but not at all surprised by the naked self-interest of Opposition Members in trying to weaponise this emotive subject. Despite the veiled threat to red wall Conservative MPs from the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, I will not be voting for this motion, because to do so would be to give the oxygen of publicity to an Opposition who, frankly, have nothing constructive to say.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
I find it astonishing that the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) and other Government Members do not understand the fury that has been unleashed across this country by the measures that the Government are failing to take and the callous way that they have treated so many millions of people. It is clear to me and the constituents of Ilford South that the Government should be hanging their heads in shame. They should not have even been forced to come to this Chamber or to have this debate.
This is a Government who have spent billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on contracts with friends linked to donors, and hundreds of millions of pounds on a failed test and trace system and, in my constituency, unusable personal protective equipment. It is an absolute disgrace that the Government cannot stump up an extra 20 quid to put food on the table of some of the most vulnerable people in this country.
We are in the midst of the worst recession ever. Millions of families, many in work but reliant on Government support to supplement poverty wages, are on the brink. This is not a time to let them sink below the poverty line; it is time for the Government to stick their hand in their pocket and do what is right.
Instead, the Government’s cruel and callous decision will have an impact on more than 6 million families across the country, and risk plunging more than 300,000 children into poverty. In my constituency of Ilford South, more than 19,000 people rely on universal credit to make ends meet. That is more than double the national average.
Worse, that decision comes just days after we learn that the Government are only setting aside £5—five measly pounds—to feed our children. Let us be under no illusion: this is an attack on Britain’s workers by a Government who represent the 1% of this country, intent on cutting tax rates for their mates and handouts for the poorest.
We are struggling through a devastating pandemic and—I think that people on both sides of this House agree—perhaps the biggest challenge for our country since the second world war. Due to the unprecedented nature of this crisis, we have all had to adapt rapidly, so it is little surprise that living costs have risen in recent months. Indeed, research by Save the Children and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that 86% of families with children on universal credit and tax credits have been faced with additional costs since the crisis began.
The increase in Government support previously was rightly welcomed. It eased the burden on millions of families up and down the country. However, it will be many months, unfortunately, before we are out the other side of this awful pandemic, and millions more will lose their jobs and be at risk of unemployment when the furlough scheme comes to its end. It is completely the wrong time to end that vital piece of support.
The Government have tried to spin their one-off payment of £500 as a positive, something that so many people have seen through. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) pointed out, in real terms that means the lowest level of unemployment support for 30 years, at a time when redundancies are going through the roof.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am afraid we now have the last speaker, who is Jacob Young.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
This is an unprecedented crisis that demands an unprecedented level of Government support. Our Conservative Government have been there for the most vulnerable at every turn. Never have any Government in our history done so much to support those in need, with more than £280 billion spent on measures prioritising the people on the lowest incomes. While the Labour party squabbles over whether that should be £281 billion or £282 billion, our determination to help the lowest paid and most vulnerable in our society continues.
The Chancellor, in his autumn statement, accepted all the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission and increased the national living wage, worth £345 to those who work a 40-hour week. In the public sector, we have had to take the difficult decision to freeze pay for many public sector workers, but we have again shielded the lowest paid: those in the public sector with below the median income will see their wages rise this year by at least £250. Since 2010, we have raised the personal tax threshold to £12,500—something that benefits the least well-off the most. We have paid 80% of people’s wages and provided the self-employed income support scheme designed for those earning less than £50,000. We have protected renters, helped with mortgages, and are delivering the targeted support needed to help families with their council tax, food and energy bills. We have continued to prioritise the least well-off.
Meanwhile, the leader of the Labour party characteristically offers only division and indecision. Last week, he said that he wanted more restrictions on our economy, but he will not tell us what they could be. He has told us that he wants to scrap our Brexit deal and to do his own, but he will not tell us what that will include. Now he says he wants to scrap universal credit, but he will not tell us what would replace it.
Sadly, since the first lockdown in March, the number of people claiming universal credit has doubled. Yet the system has not fallen over under the weight of all that additional pressure, and I pay tribute to those outstanding DWP staff, especially those at my local jobcentres in Redcar, Eston and Middlesbrough, who have worked so hard to ensure that.
The Labour party can criticise universal credit and the DWP all it likes, but it knows that the legacy system it left behind would not have been able to cope with this increase in demand, and while we have invested in universal credit by doubling the number of job coaches to provide the necessary one-to-one jobseeker support that we know works so much better, it would throw it all away rather than admit it is delivering exactly on the priorities of those who need it most. Work is the best route out of poverty, which is why we have taken such extraordinary measures to protect as many jobs as we can. This Government are rising to the immense challenge presented by a crisis like no other in our history. We are all in this together, and together is how we will beat this virus.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am sorry we have not been able to fit everybody in to this debate. It was heavily over-subscribed, and we had a statement earlier and we do have another heavily subscribed debate, so I am now going to the shadow Chancellor, Anneliese Dodds.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
With our country still locked down after record redundancies and with even more anticipated, it is astonishing that the Government are still threatening family finances. Ministers could have come to this House and promised that there would be no cut to universal credit in April. They could have recognised the incredible hardship that families have faced in the last 10 months and are likely to face as we continue in the throes of this crisis. We heard the voices of many of those families today in speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing North (James Murray), for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna).
The cut to universal credit is just one part of a triple hammer blow on families across the country, when coupled with the council tax rise of 5% and the pay freeze for many key workers. While today we have rightly been focused on the immediate threat to the incomes of 6 million families, we should not forget that those on legacy benefits, including the 1.9 million people claiming either form of employment and support allowance and the 300,000 people claiming either form of jobseeker’s allowance, of course have not received an uplift. Those payments must be uprated in line with those for universal credit.
Those on the Government Benches opposed support for families against support for jobseekers, but their choice to cut universal credit is a political one. The past year has seen the Government spend £22 billion on an outsourced test and trace system that still is not delivering. A quarter of that cost has been estimated as the cost for a continuation for a whole year of the support for families that we are debating today. This comes from a Government who have spent monumental amounts wastefully on goods and services that simply have not worked: £150 million on face masks that could not be used; £16 million on antibody tests that did not work; and £12 million on an app that had to be scrapped. The list goes on and on, as intimated by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry).
Instead of tackling waste and mismanagement, our Government are targeting families, with the worst-off fifth of households in our country facing what the Resolution Foundation has described as an “almost unimaginable” 7% hit to their disposable incomes if the Government continue on this path. Cutting £20 a week from universal credit is a political choice to make ordinary families carry the can for this Government’s mistakes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) rightly put it.
There are rumours that the Chancellor is considering a one-off payment of either £500 or £1,000 instead of maintaining the £20 per week uplift. If those payments take place at the beginning of April, people would miss out if they were affected by the end of the furlough scheme in April, so if someone loses their job on 30 March, they would get £1,000 more to see them through than if they lose their job just a month later. There can be no economic justification for this approach. Furthermore, at times during this pandemic we have had 200,000 new claimants coming on to this system in a single month. A one-off payment simply will not work.
I want to make it clear that I and the Opposition have no truck with those who abuse Government Members for their opinions or threaten them. We wholeheartedly condemn that behaviour and it has no place in our democracy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) made crystal clear.
The Prime Minister’s spokesperson described our debate as a “political stunt”, and other Members on the Government Benches echoed him. However, when the Conservative party was in opposition, it did not consider debates such as these as stunts, and nor did the then Labour Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), in one of many exceptional speeches today, put his finger on the problem: the Government have lost the capacity to listen. They need to ask themselves why a number of their own Members, from the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), called again today for the Government to look at the issue and to retain the uplift during this crisis.
The Resolution Foundation has shown how the cut, combined with rising unemployment, would lead to the biggest year-on-year rise in poverty rates since the 1980s, and to a rise in absolute, as well as relative, poverty. My hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) rightly highlighted the impact of that on child poverty in particular. The cut is morally untenable, but it is also economically nonsensical. What the UK needs as we come out of this crisis is confidence—confidence that the Government have got a grip on public health, but also confidence that people can afford to spend, to go out on to our high streets and into our small businesses. This cut shatters the confidence of those who are far more likely to spend than those who are better off. The cut also ignores the high long-term costs of poverty, as underlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham highlighted, this is a false economy.
Finally, I regret that I have to mention this, but yet again we saw Conservative Members pitting universal credit claimants against working people. Universal credit is an in-work benefit. It does not take money from everybody else who works, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) suggested, and it should not be pitted against getting Britain back to work, as the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the hon. Members for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) and for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb) maintained. My hon. Friends the Members for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) and for Easington (Grahame Morris) were absolutely right to point to the impact on claimants of such false comparisons.
The proposed cuts will disproportionately impact those in the north of England and in Wales. It is bad enough that one in five non-pensioner households in the south-east will be hit by these cuts, but in the north-east, Yorkshire and the Humber, Wales and the west midlands it will be more than one in three households. The Chancellor might want to learn the lessons of his predecessor. George Osborne also thought he could cut an average of £1,000 a year from families’ incomes. It took just over a month for him to see the error of his ways and back down. Mr Osborne’s cuts would have affected 3.3 million working families. The current Chancellor plans to take a hammer blow to nearly double that number—6 million families—across the country. Month after month, he has stubbornly ploughed ahead, ignoring the economic evidence, even ignoring two former Conservative Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions.
The Minister stated in opening that the Secretary of State was in active discussions with the Treasury. On the Labour side, our DWP and Treasury teams have already had those active discussions. We decided to prioritise families and our economic recovery, and we are doing something about it today. For all the talk of wanting to address inequality in this country, here is a policy choice from the Conservatives that would see one in four people—and one in three children—in relative poverty by the end of this Parliament. Instead, our Government should be focused on securing our economy, protecting our NHS and rebuilding Britain. Cutting a financial lifeline for 6 million people will not secure our economy. Enacting a policy that will plunge families into hardship, widen regional inequalities and make working people carry the can for the Government’s mistakes is no way to rebuild Britain. It is not too late for Government Members to do the right thing. I urge them to vote with us today and send a clear message to millions of families that their elected representatives hear them and are on their side.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
It is a privilege to close this debate on behalf of the Government. Let me begin by thanking right hon. and hon. Members across the House for their contributions. Many spoke with great passion. Having listened to the debate, it is clear to me that there is a heartfelt desire, shared on both sides of the House, to support those constituents impacted by the economic consequences of covid. That was reflected in the well measured opening remarks of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, and in the comments from my hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) and for Guildford (Angela Richardson), among many others.
The Government are acutely aware of the harm that the crisis has done to people’s finances, including the most vulnerable in our society. At every stage of the pandemic, we have striven to support those who have found themselves at the sharp end. As the Minister for welfare delivery, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), outlined earlier, that is why we introduced a wide-ranging package of welfare measures worth over £7 billion this year. That included temporarily increasing the universal credit standard allowance and the working tax credit basic element by £20 a week—an increase that has boosted welfare spending by £6.1 billion. As my hon. Friend also pointed out, given the evolving nature of the pandemic, it is right that we wait until the Budget before making future tax and welfare decisions.
Steve Barclay
I will of course give way to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.
Stephen Timms
Is it not unreasonable to force families who claim universal credit to wait until March to find out whether the rate of benefit will be cut by nearly a quarter at the end of March? Surely the Government need to announce their decision sooner.
Steve Barclay
I think what that ignores is that a quarter of the scheme is still to run, because there is still almost three months until the end of the financial year.
One should look at the package of measures as a whole. As a number of right hon. and hon. colleagues have pointed out, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has allocated £280 billion in fiscal stimulus to help weather this crisis—I think the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee has welcomed a number of these measures. As was further pointed out during the debate, and as Treasury analysis supports, the measures have overwhelmingly supported the poorest families most and reduced losses for working households by up to two thirds. That point was elegantly expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) and for Redcar (Jacob Young)—he correctly identified that the scale of Government support has been praised by many international observers, including the IMF, which has singled out the UK’s performance.
Let me briefly remind the House of some of the key elements of that support that relate most closely to this debate. The furlough scheme has protected the jobs of almost 10 million people, many of whom are on low incomes. Over 3 million people have benefited from self-employment grants. In addition to the temporary uplift in welfare payments, we have also suspended the universal credit minimum income floor and increased the local housing allowance rates for housing benefit and universal credit.
We have also supported those on low incomes through other measures, including council tax relief through the £500 million hardship fund, and the £500 payments for people on low incomes who have to self-isolate. Our covid winter support package includes the £170 million covid winter grants scheme and a £220 million expansion of the holiday activity and food programme for disadvantaged children. Those points were made during the debate, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards). These measures have provided financial support to millions of families and individuals.
Beyond the state help that those measures have enabled, there can be no doubt that the best way to raise living standards is to keep as many people in work as possible and to support their wages. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has focused on our pledge to end low pay by increasing the national living wage by 2.2% to £8.91 an hour. Indeed, he has gone further, protecting, creating and supporting employment through our £30 billion plan for jobs—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb) brought to the House’s attention very effectively. Measures including the furlough scheme, along with a raft of other initiatives designed to get people into work, have boosted jobcentre capacity, doubling the number of work coaches, and sit alongside measures such as the new £2.9 billion restart programme to help over 1 million unemployed people back into work.
As well as helping people to find jobs, we are creating new ones through a range of policies. They include our £8.6 billion investment in infrastructure, decarbonisation and maintenance programmes, and our £2 billion kickstart scheme for young people. Over the long term, we plan to unlock 250,000 highly skilled sustainable jobs that will boost our recovery under the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution.
I have set out to the House the scale of support we are providing to people in this crisis, as well as our commitment to helping the most vulnerable and those on low incomes. Let me add that it would not have been possible to provide that support without the dedication of thousands of workers in the Department for Work and Pensions and on the frontline in jobcentres around the country. Let me echo the remarks of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, the Minister for welfare delivery, by pointing out how well the universal credit system has coped with the enormous increase in claimants over the past months, a point recognised quite rightly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones)—I am sure colleagues will join me in wishing her a happy birthday—and my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall).
Despite immense pressures, payments have still been issued swiftly and efficiently to millions of people through the universal credit system. It is clear that every Member of this House is concerned for the financial wellbeing of families and individuals in their constituencies and across the country. That has been reflected in the remarks from all sides of the House during the course of the debate. The Government, too, are acutely aware of the challenges people face. That is why we have spent £280 billion in response to covid, reflecting the Government’s and the Chancellor’s commitment to support individuals, businesses and our public services. As such, we will not move an amendment to this debate.
Question put.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My apologies to the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) for not being able to give them prior notice of my point of order because they were on telling duty. I was concerned, at the calling of that Division, that the advent of face masks in the Chamber may have disguised a member or two of the Opposition Whips Office shouting opposition to their own motion, thus rendering redundant the idea that the vote should follow the voice. Could you advise me further on that, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. Nothing disorderly has happened. There was a shout of “Aye” and a shout of “No”, and Tellers were put in when I put the question again. I am sure that he is not questioning my judgment. Nothing disorderly has happened, and the vote took place in the proper manner.
I will now suspend the House for three minutes in order to enable the arrangements necessary for the next business to be made.
Remote Education and Free School Meals
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 272 / Noes: 0 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that families need more support during school and college closures; and that those eligible should be guaranteed to receive the full value of free school meals for the duration of the school year, including during all holidays; and calls on the Secretary of State for Education to set a deadline to ensure that every learner has the resources required to learn remotely, and provide a weekly update to Parliament on implementing this.
Today, and at least until February half-term, millions of children have not attended school and will instead be studying at home. No one wants to be in this situation—we all believe that school is the best place for children’s learning and wellbeing—but for now, faced with a rising coronavirus infection rate, we understand that many children need to study at home. They, their families and hard-working school staff deserve to know that the Government are doing all they can to support them.
That is why we have brought forward a motion this evening that asks two fundamental questions: first, are the Government doing everything they can to support pupils to keep learning remotely; and secondly, are the Government doing everything they can to ensure that children do not go hungry when they cannot get a free meal in school? If the answer to those questions is no, which I believe it is, then Members, whatever their party, should vote for our motion.
These should be matters on which we can all agree. I am sure there is nobody in this House who does not believe that children should receive a world-class education and that every family in this country should be able to provide their children with nourishing meals, but the reality is that the Government have not done enough—too slow to secure digital access for those who need it, while overseeing yet another scandal in delivering free school meals to children in need of them. The Prime Minister and, indeed, the Secretary of State claimed to be outraged by images of food parcels they saw on social media last week, but I and my party are outraged at Ministers’ consistent and unforgivable failure to stand with children and families throughout this pandemic. Pupils and parents deserve a Government who are on their side. They deserve better than this Government.
I pay tribute to everyone who has gone above and beyond to keep children safe and learning throughout the pandemic—the teachers, leaders and support staff across our education system who have worked hard in extraordinary circumstances to keep children learning safely; and the parents who face the unenviable task of balancing work, educating their children and childcare, too often without the support they needed.
At the beginning of this pandemic, 1.8 million children did not have the devices or internet connections they needed to work from home and, in that first national lockdown, many of those children struggled to access remote learning. Despite the best efforts of teachers, school leaders and support staff, some children fell behind their peers because they lacked the basic resources to continue learning when they could not be in the classroom. The Secretary of State rightly started to provide some devices to some of those children. He set a target of providing 230,000 devices by the end of June last year. Not only did that fall far short of the number of children who needed them, but he did not even deliver all those devices on time. Perhaps he could have learned a lesson from the Labour Government in Wales, which repurposed existing orders and were supporting pupils with devices by the end of May, according to the independent Education Policy Institute.
Being less prepared than the Welsh Labour Administration may have been understandable at the beginning of the pandemic, but the Secretary of State’s inability to learn from his failures and from their success is inexcusable. Instead of redoubling his efforts to get devices to all the pupils who lacked digital access as quickly as possible, the Secretary of State waited until the new national lockdown this month to up his target and accelerate delivery, leaving hundreds of thousands of pupils not only out of the classroom, but out of learning. So I ask him: why were these laptops not being rolled out on this scale months ago? Why was he once again too slow to act to secure children’s education in the face of huge disruption?
Today, we have reached about 700,000 devices delivered against a target of 1.3 million. It does seem that the Secretary of State is finally beginning to learn from at least one of his mistakes. This time, he has decided not to set himself a deadline that he will simply miss, but he cannot shy away from his duty to those children, so can he tell the House now when all the devices will be in the hands of the pupils who need them? Can he guarantee that when that is done, every single child who was locked out of remote learning will be able to participate fully when they are not in the classroom?
This is not just an issue in schools. In colleges, we have heard of adult learners struggling to access remote learning and not being eligible for Government support. Universities UK, ucisa, GuildHE and Jisc have written to the Secretary of State in just the last few days to request urgent action to support the thousands of university students who are still unable to access their education online due to digital and data poverty. Will he tell us what he is doing to address this?
I would like to move to the second part of the motion on free school meals. The images of food parcels that we saw last week were scandalous. Ministers have said that they are outraged by them, but they refused to accept that responsibility for those images is a direct result of their own policies. They pushed for a food parcel-first approach and set guidance for parcels worth only a fraction of the £15 made available to providers for families to feed their children. They cannot devise and publish a policy and guidelines and then be appalled when they are implemented. Will the Secretary of State now take responsibility for what occurred and apologise to the parents who received those unacceptable food parcels?
The Secretary of State then managed to outdo himself, with not just one but two free school meals scandals last week. Only days after we all saw those images, it was reported that schools will not be providing free meals over the February half term. Of course, the Secretary of State voted against such a measure in October. We thought he had learned his lesson, but now he is letting down hungry children again. I know that he will cite the winter support scheme, but that scheme does not guarantee that every child eligible for a free school meal will get one every day of the holidays, and he cannot guarantee that no child will go hungry when they are out of school this half term.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I am listening to the hon. Lady carefully. I am sorry that she has not picked up the tone of her shadow DWP colleague, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) —he got the tone right; she has not—but does she agree that there is clearly a long-term conversation to be had in this country about school holiday food for families in receipt of free school meals? It is something that never happened during the 13 years of the last Labour Government and that, to my knowledge, the Opposition have not pushed this Government on during the last almost 11 years of their being in office. Does she agree that there is a conversation to be had, sensibly, across the Dispatch Box and without the partisan nonsense, about the long-term provision of holiday food for some of the poorest children in our country?
Kate Green
I am aware that a number of organisations, representing food charities, anti-poverty organisations, educationalists and so on, have written to the Prime Minister suggesting a full review of that subject. I welcome that, and I hope that he will respond with the offer of the review that they are seeking. However, I point out that not only are we in the middle of the first global pandemic in 100 years, but that it is against the backdrop of rapidly rising child poverty. That is why the push to address the hunger that children are facing now has become more acute than ever.
I have a simple solution for the Secretary of State to the problem of holiday hunger, one that could solve the problem at the touch of a button: sack the companies that are providing a substandard service and just give parents the money—secure family incomes by using the existing social security infrastructure and put £15 a week into the bank accounts of the parents who need it to feed their children. He should put his trust in mums and dads, because we know that parents will do the right thing.
Anyone who has thought about these issues—I do not know about Government Members, but I have spent a large part of my career thinking about them—knows that cash transfers work. They improve outcomes for children, they remove stigma for families and they ensure that the full value of support provided goes to children. I know that there are some people—in October we discovered some of them on the Government Benches—who believe that parents cannot be trusted to use money responsibly to feed their children. That is wrong in every possible way. It is morally wrong to condemn families to insecurity and stigma. It is economically illiterate not to provide cash to families who most need it, and instead to slash their incomes in the midst of the worst recession that most of us will know in our lifetimes. And it is factually and empirically wrong to suggest that this money would not be spent by parents on food for children. So I ask the Secretary of State to do the right thing: to end the scandal of inadequate food parcels or vouchers that take days to arrive, and the scandal—in one of the richest countries in the world—of children continuing to go to bed hungry.
I want to turn briefly to the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Let me begin by saying that there are some things in the amendment that I am glad to see—not least that he has finally listened to teachers and to Labour and started to move towards zero rating of educational websites, though quite why it has taken him so long, I do not know. First, the amendment asks us to note that the Government are
“committed to supporting families to feed their children during both term-time and holidays”.
It then mentions a voucher scheme that has been hit by repeated delays in an outsourcing fiasco, a winter grant scheme that cannot guarantee that every child will be fed and a holiday scheme that will not be in place for months. It condemns the food parcels we saw on social media, while failing to take any responsibility for the fact that they were in line with the Government’s own policies. It ignores the Government’s plans to slash more than £1,000 a year from family incomes by cutting the lifeline in universal credit, plunging hundreds of thousands of children into poverty.
Then the amendment calls on us to note all the progress the Secretary of State has made in improving digital access. It lauds his half-delivered target of delivering 1.3 million laptops yet gives us no clear timeline for full delivery. It notes the support given to schools but ignores the fact that schools up and down the country have repeatedly reported that they have not had the support they needed from the Government throughout the pandemic, whether it is on funding, testing, exams—the list continues. I am afraid the amendment is not credible. In fact, it is insulting to schools and families across the country, who will see through this attempt to give Government Members something to vote for while failing to support the entirely reasonable motion we have tabled.
Poverty is, sadly, endemic across our country. In every city, town and community, it blights the life chances of children, causes unimaginable hardship and insecurity to families, and weakens our economy. The pandemic has made the situation far, far worse, and it is appalling that today, we have seen with our own eyes that the Government are simply not committed to the task of ending child poverty.
Earlier this evening, Government Members failed to support Labour’s motion calling for the £20 uplift in universal credit—a lifeline that has kept millions above water over the past nine months—to be made permanent. The consequences are simple: families and children will be plunged into insecurity, hardship and poverty. I am giving Government Members a second chance to do the right thing this evening and to put children first by voting for our motion—a motion that asks for nothing more than the chance for every child to learn and for no child to go hungry.
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
This Government have been engaged in a monumental battle to manage the effects of the coronavirus pandemic, to protect the NHS and to save lives, and also to minimise the damage that this ongoing disruption is causing to a generation of young people’s lives. This is not a challenge faced by this country alone; it is a challenge faced by nations right across the world.
On 5 January, escalating rates of covid infection once more forced us to ask schools to close their doors to the majority of pupils for the second time in less than a year. This is not a move that any of us in the House—certainly not on the Government Benches—wanted to see. So much learning has been lost already, but we know that one of the most effective ways of reducing the impact of being out of school is through high-quality remote education. I am glad to say that we are in a much better place than we were last March for minimising the worst effects of this disruption. School and college teachers and leaders have quickly adapted once more to delivering a mix of online and face-to-face instruction. I thank them once again, as I am sure all in this House want to, for the brilliant way that they have responded to the evolving health situation.
Last year, a group of 40 teachers founded and launched the Oak National Academy, with not just our moral support, but, more importantly, financial support from the Department for Education. It was a new venture that many people said could not or would not work, but in two weeks flat, it was able to produce thousands of high-quality, teacher-led video lessons with £4 million of Government funding. It now has 3.8 million users, and 32 million lessons have been viewed—not just in England, but in all four nations of the United Kingdom.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend also note that the Oak National Academy today launched its virtual library, and congratulate all those who have taken part? It means that our children can be not only learning, but reading, which is so important—and this comes as we launch the all-party group on literacy tomorrow.
Gavin Williamson
I echo what my hon. Friend said about the importance of the expansion of services at the Oak National Academy, and of encouraging the ever-greater availability of resources on this brilliant platform. I certainly wish him the very best with the new all-party group.
Online learning is a critical means of helping children and young people make the academic progress that they so desperately need at this time. Now that most children and young people are studying remotely, we have increased our expectations of the remote education that they receive. Schools have made huge progress in developing their remote education provision, and are now expected to provide either recorded or live direct teaching, alongside allowing pupils time to complete independently work that they have been set. Schools are now expected to provide a minimum of three hours’ provision a day for key stage 1—it is fewer hours for younger children—four hours a day for key stage 2, and five hours a day for key stages 3 and 4. Schools should also have a system in place for checking daily whether pupils are engaging actively with their work and learning.
We have set out clear, legally binding requirements for schools to provide high-quality remote education, and it is fantastic to see how schools and teachers have risen to the occasion, delivering a real step change in the standard of remote education compared with last spring.
Further education colleges are expected to continue to deliver as much of students’ planned hours as possible, to provide students with regular feedback on their progress and, wherever possible, to provide students with live online teaching when they cannot provide it face to face.
My Department is acutely aware of our huge responsibility to all our children, but none more than those who are socially and economically disadvantaged. We made it a priority to deliver the necessary technology to children in that position very early on in this pandemic, and I am glad to be able to give colleagues an update. Prior to the pandemic, there were an estimated 2.9 million laptops and tablets already in schools’ stock. In March, we began the process of finding a supplier who could deliver hundreds of thousands of computers for disadvantaged children. In April, we awarded Computacenter a contract for an initial 220,000 computers. We extended our commitment in August by a further 150,000, and did so again in September, and in October. By December, we had procured and delivered 560,000 laptops and tablets. In November, we ordered an additional 340,000 devices, bringing our total procurement to 1 million laptops and tablets. This has been one of the world’s largest procurements of laptops and tablets, and it has happened despite intense global demand.
Despite the million laptops or tablets commitment, we wanted to go further, and this year we have already ordered a further 300,000 devices on top of our current order. Already, three quarters of a million computers are in the hands of schools and disadvantaged young people. All this is in addition to the 1.9 million laptops and 1 million tablets that schools already have, most of which can be lent out to those pupils who need them most.
The latest 300,000 devices lift our investment in online learning by another £100 million, meaning that more than £400 million has been invested in supporting disadvantaged children and young people who need the most help and support with access to technology through the pandemic. The 16-to-19 bursary fund was another, existing means of supporting disadvantaged learners in schools and further education settings. As for adults, we introduced a change to the Education and Skills Funding Agency adult education budget last July, so that the most disadvantaged adult learners could continue to join courses that have moved online because of the virus. We have extended the “Get help with technology” scheme, in order to provide disadvantaged 16 to 19-year-olds with further help with devices.
I have concentrated so far in this debate on making clear how we are doing everything we can to ensure all our young people can continue to learn from home during the latest lockdown. However, no child can do their best if they are hungry, and I emphasise clearly, so that there is no doubt whatever, the Government’s commitment to free school meals.
I want to stress that the overwhelming majority of schools have been successfully providing exceptionally high-quality free school meal support to their pupils. However, pictures were circulated last week of food parcels that were simply not acceptable. Along with the Minister for children, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), I have met those who are supplying these parcels, and I have left them in no doubt that we expect high-quality food and supplies in the parcels they deliver. Our guidance states that the parcels need to contain certain items that parents can use to make a healthy lunch for any child throughout the week.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
The Opposition make it sound as though the only people supplying these boxes last week were private companies, but many of the pictures from Birmingham that were circulating were of packages provided by Birmingham City Council’s catering company, Cityserve. Rather than trying to set one part of society against another when it comes to private companies, Members of Parliament should be working together to tackle these issues head-on.
Gavin Williamson
I think Members from all parts of this House will join together where there is unacceptable delivery, in terms of the standards we all expect. It is right to call that out, for action to be taken and for standards to be raised. People are admittedly working under extreme pressure, but we need standards to continue to increase. Equally, every one of us will have seen—not only in our constituency, but right across the country—amazing work done by so many of our catering staff in schools. They have pulled out all the stops, and provided wonderful, nutritious meals for so many children up and down the country. It is important to put on record our thanks to those who have done so much.
Steve Brine
May I direct my right hon. Friend to the Connect4communities programme that Hampshire County Council is putting together? It includes a discretionary schools grant, a holiday play scheme, and free school meal vouchers for the February half-term. That is how we are spending £2.9 million or so of the covid winter grant to support families in my Winchester constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when we discuss these matters, it is vital that we stick to the facts and the practical help on the ground for our constituents?
Gavin Williamson
Absolutely. My hon. Friend always makes excellent points, as my experience of working with him in the Whips Office always proved. He is right to highlight the brilliant work that Hampshire County Council is doing. So many local authorities are looking at this issue in an innovative and different way, and are able to have a bigger impact and offer more support to those families who are most disadvantaged, and to whom we want to see support and help offered.
We are well aware that free school meals play a vital role in making sure that disadvantaged children receive a healthy, nutritious meal each school day. They are aimed at families who are out of work or on low incomes, and I have no doubt that they represent a lifeline for many families who have been hard-hit by this pandemic. Any school, family or pupil will be able to raise concerns about their food parcels through the Department for Education helpline. We have had a minimal number of cases so far, but we will take action on each and every one of them.
I want to be clear that children will be receiving food over the February half-term, just as they did at Christmas. In November, we announced a £170 million covid winter grant scheme to support vulnerable children and families—not only with food but, importantly, with other essentials, because we on the Government Benches recognise that this is not just an issue of food; sometimes, for those families most in need and requiring greater support, it is about other elements of support, too. Many of those families were struggling with bills, and other support could be provided through schemes such as the one so brilliantly outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine).
We recognised that support needed to be put in place, and we are doing more to provide support for children over the holidays. As part of the winter package announced in November, we confirmed the expansion of our brilliant holiday activities and food programme, at a cost of £220 million. It would be remiss of me not to mention the work done by a former member of the Labour party, Lord Field, who has done so much to highlight this issue and has always been a great advocate for holiday activities. While we address the issue of food, we must not lose sight of the need to make sure that activities are going on, and the need to support young people, most importantly, families. The expansion of the programme means that eligible children in every local authority throughout the country will be able to access healthy food and take part in fun activities over Easter, summer and Christmas, if they require that.
The course of the virus has changed since December. As a result of the change in trajectory, and bearing the possibility of future changes in mind, the Government will continue to keep under review what they need to do to ensure that all children continue to be fed, and families continue to be supported. I am confident that, thanks to the measures that we have put in place, remote education will go from strength to strength during this lockdown, enabling young people to make the educational progress that every single one of us in this House wants. Of course, every single one of us on the Government Benches wants to see them return to the classroom at the earliest opportunity.
I can confirm that the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister will not be moved this evening. Government Members are focusing on making sure that we get social policy right for the children of this country, and that they and their families are properly supported. For those on the Opposition Benches, so often the tone of the debate is more about social media than social policy. What we see in this Government’s actions are long-term solutions in respect of not just food, but activity for children at Easter, summer and into the future, because we realise and understand that that can make a real difference to children’s lives.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
For the avoidance of any doubt, the Secretary of State did make it clear that he has not moved the selected amendment, so the Question before the House remains that already proposed—that is, as on the Order Paper.
I remind hon. Members that there will be a three-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches following the SNP spokesperson. When a speaking limit is in effect for Back Benchers, a countdown clock will be visible on the screens of hon. Members participating virtually and the screens in the Chamber. For hon. Members participating physically in the Chamber, the usual clock in the Chamber will operate.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
[Inaudible] This important motion, which the SNP absolutely supports—in fact, every Member with a conscience should be supporting this motion.
In my maiden speech, I talked about the difficulties of young people learning when they were hungry or living in a challenging environment. This pandemic has made those issues even more acute. There are some basics that every child needs, such as food and warmth, but for successful learning to take place, they also need a safe place to study and access to appropriate resources. I am sure that Members will join me in welcoming the Scottish Government’s ongoing commitment to free school meals, including in holiday periods. This is currently a cash-first response or vouchers for those eligible for free school meals, based on the individual family preference.
Our support for our most vulnerable children goes beyond free school meals. This year, we have introduced the game-changing Scottish child payment for eligible children under six to ensure that these youngsters have the very best start in life. Thousands of children and young people in receipt of free school meals are being supported through an additional £100 payment for every eligible child in the household. Despite the financial challenge, this shows a clear political commitment by the Scottish Government to the wellbeing of our youngsters.
We need a similar commitment from the UK Government to ensure that no child is going hungry, and that includes school holiday support. Having seen the shameful images of free school meals from last week, I ask the Government why private companies are profiteering off the back of hungry children. It should not be up to a private provider to decide what constitutes a weekly lunch offering. One thing that I know for sure is that families living in poverty know just how to make their budget stretch, so rather than arguing over who exactly is responsible, the Government should follow the example of the Scottish Government by just giving the families the money and trusting parents to feed their own children.
The Scottish Government have acted quickly to provide digital devices and support for remote learning. The Secretary of State said last week that Barnett consequentials would be delivered to the Scottish Government for additional spending on laptops and tablets. It would be useful to know when we can expect this funding. There are some very good online resources. In Scotland, we have sites such as e-Sgoil and SCHOLAR, but despite the quality of these resources, they will always be second best to a normal classroom environment. They should not be considered a substitute for high-quality classroom teaching, where there is development—for example, of investigative and collaborative skills—and where teachers can identify issues and target support.
However, until we can reopen classrooms, access to these resources must be made available to all. Without this, all the digital devices that the Secretary of State describes are little more than glorified typewriters, so it would be good to hear a better explanation than he gave this afternoon as to why he refused BT’s offer of internet access for disadvantaged learners. If he is struggling to identify these young people, he can contact the schools; they know exactly who is in need of such support. Ultimately, if the UK Government cannot deliver for Scotland at this time, they should devolve powers over broadband and borrowing to the Scottish Government, so that they can consign digital exclusion to the past.
There is not a person in this place who does not want children back in schools as soon as possible. This pandemic has highlighted the incredible job that our teachers do, so my final plea is that teachers be prioritised for vaccination, to ensure they have the confidence to return to full class teaching.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
Although I voted against the Government previously on free school meals, I firmly believe that they have come up with a comprehensive package that should be recognised: £220 million for holiday activities and the food programme, £60 million for frontline food charities, £120 million last summer to keep free school meals going, Healthy Start vouchers, and £170 million for local authorities, 80% of which is ring-fenced for food and essential items. It is worth noting that all of this was welcomed by Opposition Members and the teaching unions at the time it was announced. It is also worth noting that, as the Prime Minister reminded the Liaison Committee last week, free school meals were proposed and invented by a Conservative Government, and that in 2012, alongside other MPs and the Association of Colleges, I successfully campaigned for their extension to disadvantaged college students.
I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that the £150 million from the sugar levy that is unaccounted for is used to expand the national school breakfast programme, as we know that breakfast clubs increase attainment by up to two months. This debate should not just have been a political sugar rush for the Opposition, in which to score political points against the Government when they have done the right thing; it should have been a debate on how to deal with the fundamental problems around food poverty through, for example, family hubs, early intervention, and reform of the welfare system.
I turn now to the issue of remote learning. A report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that poorer students spent less time learning than their richer peers, had fewer resources at home with which to learn effectively, and are less likely to return to in-person schooling when given the chance. I therefore welcome the Government’s guidance on remote learning, the 1,900 laptops delivered to schools in Essex, and the direction of Ofsted to work with schools not as interrogators or investigators, but as candid friends.
However, we can provide all the laptops in the world, but the £1 billion catch-up scheme will still be fundamental. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to confirm what he told the Select Committee on Education last week: that his Department will ensure all the national tutoring programme partners will be able to deliver online learning, and that the list of approved tuition partners will be flexible and rolling, allowing new and innovative tuition programmes such as the Invicta National Academy. Will he support teacher vaccinations to get our schools open, and will he carry out a risk assessment of the ongoing impact of school closures? Finally, does he not agree that the best solution to the issue of remote learning is to get our schools open as soon as possible, and get our children learning again?
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Throughout this pandemic, a light has been shone on the poverty and inequality in our country like never before. The free school meals fiasco is another example of the Government’s complete lack of sincerity when it comes to tackling inequality in this country. A Government-contracted provider sent a food box that contained a pitiful spoonful of tuna in a tiny coin bag. Someone is profiting from these boxes, and it is not children or families. Perhaps the Secretary of State can throw some light on to that.
I find this a shameful state of affairs for the fifth richest country in the world. I welcome the fact that the Government have agreed with the public that these boxes are unacceptable; however, their contents are very close to the Government guidelines issued for them. Until they were caught out, the Government were happy that children should be fed nutritionally inadequate lunches. When Opposition Members raise such issues with the Government, they rebut us by telling us what they have done and how much funding has been committed—we have just heard an example of that. However, the problems still exist, so if Ministers are serious about this, I urge them to tell us what more they will do to ensure that no child in this country goes hungry.
When schools and colleges closed earlier this month, many pupils went home knowing that they would not be able to access classes the next day. While some children and young people are rightly able to attend school and engage with learning, the wide eligibility of critical workers has led to schools being oversubscribed. I have heard from schools in Brightside and Hillsborough that have had to prioritise children and turn others away. One school with 200 pupils has said that it can accommodate 80 of those safely, but 140 applied for a place. There is a similar story in many schools in my constituency.
With so many pupils unable to attend school, ensuring access to laptops and the internet is vital to mitigate the impact of the learning lost by so many children and young people already. A recent audit by Sheffield City Council found that, across the city, 7,000 children are without suitable devices and 4,500 have no connectivity. We are now into our third week of the national lockdown. Only this week has a free school meals voucher scheme been launched. More than 10,000 children and young people in Sheffield are still waiting to access home learning, along with many more in the country. It is a source of shame for our country to have let our children down so badly. The Government must accept that it is too little and it is too late.
The Government must no longer deny many thousands of children and young learners their right to good nutrition and the learning that they need and deserve. They are our country’s future, and I beg you not to let them down again.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
In the interests of trying to get on to more people on the speakers list, I will try to be brief. However, I will do so without the toxicity, party rhetoric and empty claims from Opposition Members.
What we do need and what I do welcome is a much more holistic approach to a food strategy moving forward. So while I did vote against the Government previously on the topic of free school meals, I was pleased—as were Opposition Members, as were the teaching unions—when the covid winter support scheme came through and when the holiday activities support scheme came forward. This actually will make a serious and meaningful change to the lives of our young people.
As we heard from the Secretary of State, over 700,000 devices have been delivered, and that should be applauded. Yes, we all want more to be delivered. However, we do need to wait for some of these laptops and devices to actually be manufactured. We have bought the capacity for the manufacturing to be proceeded with as quickly as possible. However, we cannot give devices that have not actually been built. Yes, I would like to go further and say that maybe we should devolve the budget to schools so that they can try to use their own procurement methods and perhaps find a more local solution, and I would urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to see if that is an option. However, we are limited to the manufacture, and I do applaud what we have done so far.
On school meals, we have heard from Opposition Members that now children all of a sudden will be going starving in the February half-term. However, their own union members welcomed the commitment back in November, saying the
“£170m channelled via local authorities to the end of March appears to address the immediate need to ensure that children do not go hungry over the Christmas and February half-term holidays.”
So I ask: if it was welcome back in November, why is it not welcome now?
I would also like to echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) when he was calling for a wider view to be taken about the sugary drinks levy and the School Breakfast Bill in the name of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), which I am proud to be a sponsor of. I think that, if we are to take a wider view as to how we tackle not only at school and children hunger, but the attainment gap, this has to be something that we explore and explore meaningfully to try to tackle these problems.
When we look at the issue of laptops, on even my own Labour council, the deputy leader of the council and cabinet member for education has said there is no issue with laptops locally. With that in mind, I would like to thank the Department for what it has done. Yes, we could do more, and yes, we could try to get things quicker, but this is similar to the vaccine: it is a matter of supply, not of being able actually to deliver.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
In the north-west, a quarter of a million children qualify for free school meals. Nearly 6,500 of those children live in my constituency. To put that in perspective, more children are claiming free school meals in Manchester, Gorton than in the constituencies of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education combined. It is no wonder then that the Government continually fail to comprehend the reality of life for children and families who rely on free school meals.
Schools, food banks, mutual aid groups and my constituents have helped throughout this difficult month. I am incredibly grateful to every single person involved. I must also thank Marcus Rashford for his tireless work through the crisis. I am sure that he knows this already, but Manchester is immensely proud of him.
For families struggling to make ends meet, free school meals are a lifeline. Yet, once again, we are having to persuade the Government to continue that support through the school holidays. Without free school meals, half-term would be devastating for the 6,327 children in my constituency who, without this support, would otherwise go hungry.
The link between poverty and digital exclusion is clear: if people are poor, they have less chance of being online. For children this year, that has meant missing out on vital learning. I have spoken with headteachers across my constituency, who say that they are desperate for digital devices for pupils. Not a single one I spoke to said that enough devices had been received for all the children who need one. Sadly, children growing up in poverty are once again being abandoned by this Government. They are left to go without schooling and without food.
If the Government wanted to, they could change that overnight by extending the provision of free school meals over the upcoming half-term, introducing a cash-payment system for parents while schools are closed, and rapidly upscaling the delivery of digital devices to those schools that need them. I hope they will do so soon. Until then, I will continue to be a voice for the poorest and most in need in my constituency.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) [V]
Nourishment is fundamental to learning, as to so much else. In recognition of its importance, of course, eligibility has been extended three times since 2010—among infants, in further education colleges as my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) mentioned, and with the extension of the universal credit roll-out.
In current circumstances, it has been right to extend support into the holidays, during the depths of this crisis. I support the covid winter grant scheme. In Hampshire, I welcome the programme elements that go considerably beyond lunches and children eligible for free school meals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) mentioned, to target help where it is most needed, with things such as discretionary school grants, community pantries, provision of fuel cards where needed and other elements and channels.
Looking beyond covid, I hope that it will be possible to maintain and indeed extend the holiday food and activities programme, which a number of colleagues have mentioned and which we grew while I was at the Department for Education. The best programmes in that scheme include a variety of purposeful activity and family food-preparation workshops. I was very impressed when I visited to two such programmes run by Connect4Summer in my constituency of East Hampshire, in Headley Down and in Bordon.
Turning to the other part of the motion, on resources for learning remotely, this has clearly been an immensely difficult time for teachers, parents and children and I commend them all for what they have done. I support the unprecedented effort to provide extra hardware on top of the devices that schools already had, but of course, this is not only about that tech. That is far from the only aspect of remote education. Indeed, there are limits on it, especially further down the age range. Many schools have created fantastic paper resources, and old technology such as textbooks continue to play an important role. It is important to maximise the effectiveness of the less new technologies, which are widely available, and I am pleased that the BBC has now announced more programming. I wish that that had happened earlier, because although there are many companies that can make great online resources, there are few that can do broadcasting.
The move to remote learning was so rapid that teachers and others did not have time to plan, but much has been learned since then by schools, ed tech suppliers and others. We have seen how to improve the balance, for example, between live lessons and at-your-own-pace work. We have learned more about what tech can and cannot do, and about how it can augment learning. The range of ed tech available now is truly outstanding, and the all-party parliamentary group on education technology is looking at the lessons that can be learned from lockdown. The road ahead is surely challenging for this generation of children and their amazing teachers in terms of getting back on track and re-narrowing the attainment gap, and it is essential that what we have learned in this time through the albeit enforced distance learning is put to best use when, in time, we return to normality.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) [V]
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). I want to share a few thoughts from the frontline here in Europe’s youngest city, Birmingham. It is fair to say that many people will have a degree of sympathy, in that this was a crisis that could not have been foreseen, but nor could anybody else have foreseen it, and yet somehow here in this country we have had more lives lost than almost anywhere else, livelihoods have been hit harder than almost anywhere else, and now, as we are going to hear from this debate, more lessons are being lost here than anywhere else. The right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to say that young people have a very hard road ahead of them. Here in Birmingham, like everywhere else in Britain, our children have really suffered from the exams fiasco last year. Here in the west midlands, youth services have been cut by two and a half times more than the national average, we have youth unemployment that is over 20%, and now our young people are being punished because they cannot get the education they need at home.
I was glad to hear that the Secretary of State is now interested in social policy. Let me share some data with him. We surveyed 443 schools last week in Birmingham, and I thank Ian Ward, the leader of the council, and cabinet member Jayne Francis for organising that. All but one of the respondents said that they had problems with technology for children at home. Some secondary schools are saying that they are 400 laptops short, 70% said that there were problems with connectivity and almost all of them said that there were problems getting through to the DFE. Listen to Maddie Bromley from Court Farm Primary School: “Deprived school. Allocation 51 laptops, only 10 arrived. Still waiting on the rest. Had to chase Government repeatedly.” Or Helen Slack, the head of Twickenham Primary School: “No allocation for years 1, 2 and 3. Parents ringing in tears. Can’t get an answer from the Department for Education.” Another school said: “We are an infant school. We have been ignored by the DFE.” And another: “As an infant school, we were not eligible for laptops.” Another head said: “We have been in desperate need for laptops. Any help appreciated, thank you.”, and another told me: “We have requested over 15 times now from the Department for Education and still haven’t had a response.” Some are reporting that there are anywhere between 70 and 250 parents in desperate need of technology support. This is a shambles. I say thank you to Birmingham City Council and thank you to Graeme Brown, the editor of the Birmingham Post and the Birmingham Mail for offering to jump into the breach and organise laptop collections, because where the Department has failed, we now need the good people and the good companies of Birmingham to come together to fill the breach.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) [V]
I would like to focus my remarks specifically on remote and online learning.
I would like to express my incredible admiration for all teachers who have managed to turn around at such fast pace and such short notice a fantastic programme of online support. I am the father of a six-year-old girl, a four-year-old son, and, in addition, a 14-month-old baby screaming in the background. I have just managed to wrestle this laptop away from their learning today. The level of support in what I have seen has been wonderful. Regardless of my ability to have access to a laptop, a number of people who are both working parents struggle to provide these three hours. I hold my hand up and say that I struggle to do the home schooling to the best of what I would like to be my ability. After this pandemic has ceased, we will need a national education recovery plan to look at all children’s ability and see where they need to recover. That covers not just the disadvantaged but every single pupil who will have fallen behind on the track. I know that my children are not receiving the experience that they deserve with being present in school, but I would never think to suggest that the money that is being invested in schools should be returned for not providing that level of support, because what they are providing digitally is the best they can do in difficult circumstances. I am sure that that view is shared by millions of parents across the country.
Why, then, should it be any different for other learning arenas—in particular, our universities? Thousands of lecturers have gone above and beyond to provide additional online resourcing materials, and yet these lecturers, who are sometimes paid less than primary school teachers, are supposedly providing an inferior service. The other day, one Labour MP talked about degrees being conducted by Zoom as if that was some kind of substandard process. It is not. Universities have invested more money than ever before in online procedures in just the same way that schools have. It costs more to provide online resources at university. To suggest that there should be a reduction in the fees level would simply lead to increased redundancies in universities. We need our universities, just as we need our schools, to be there to help students to recover when this pandemic ends. It is right, therefore, to support all educational settings and to fight for the fact that we need them for the future and must not put any of them under particular under attack.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) [V]
I have spoken before about growing up on free school meals and how important they are to children and families, but also about the stigma that was palpable and what it actually felt like to grow up poor. Colleagues will know that I am incredibly passionate about this issue. I set up, and have chaired for over 10 years, the all-party parliamentary group on school food.
Progress has been made. However, the images of some of the food parcels given to families in the past few weeks have shocked us all and rightly shamed the companies that provided them. Families deserve dignity and should expect high-quality food to ensure that their children continue to eat healthy food throughout the school closures. But stale bread, browning bananas, peppers and tomatoes cut in half and processed cheese do not meet those expectations for the standards of meals in our schools. There is no silver bullet for replacing the lovely hot, healthy meals that children were due to receive in school, but the Government must accept that families have agency to go shopping and buy and prepare the food that works for them by themselves. Extensive research by the World Bank in all world economies, not just the poorest, proves that cash transfers work and that concerns around their use on “temptation goods” are “unfounded”. We should trust parents to do right by their children and give them the means to do so when schools are closed.
Food and access to it is going to be so important to our covid recovery. That is why, when children return to school, I want them to return to the hot and healthy meals they need and deserve. That means the Government supporting the schools’ food supply chain and making a commitment that we will not see any move away from hot and healthy free school meals when schools reopen. Free school meals have been hard fought for for over 115 years, and it is crucial that we protect them for children and families of the future who will need them too.
On Friday, I met headteachers in my constituency who told me of children working well into the night because their parents had to use the only laptop in the house for work during the day. In other homes, children are expected to share a device with five siblings. How can we hope for our young people to develop when we feed them poorly and force them to learn on one sixth of a shared computer with limited data access? The Government really must do better, and they have a chance tonight to accept that.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) [V]
This is an important subject, and I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate. We can be proud of the support that the Government have put in place for those who are most vulnerable to the dangers of the coronavirus, but there is no hiding from the fact that this has been, and continues to be, an incredibly difficult time for many in our communities. We have all had to adapt to the changes that the pandemic has forced upon us. Of all those conversations, one of the most important is about how we brace our young people, both in the here and now and against the difficulties they may face after we defeat the virus.
Colleagues are right to make reference to the package that the Government have put in place. I voted for the previous Opposition motion on free school meals, and I would do it again, but the Government have now put in place increased support. The ambitious covid winter grant scheme introduced by the Government will fund holiday free school meals through local authorities for those children that need them, and the holiday activities and food programme will follow. Those are meaningful, real-life packages of support that local authorities and schools are using right now to help children. They are tailored to those who need them most. I was pleased to work alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and local council leader Rob Waltham on this in our area.
Talking about this is important, and what hon. and right hon. Members say in this Chamber is important, but what matters most is what we do to improve the life chances of our young people. I am proud to work alongside those on the ground who get on with it and put that Government support in place. This issue should never be about headlines or the opportunity for political advantage. On that note, I want to thank and acknowledge those people at the frontline on free school meals and the provision of remote learning devices. Throughout this pandemic, our schools, our teachers and all our school staff have had to take on additional roles. They are now social workers, councillors and, with remote learning in place, IT consultants too. I hope that the Government will recognise those contributions in future pay reviews.
With our schools working hard to catch up, I call on the Government to continue their support for the catch-up premium and the national tutoring programme—important policies that can make a meaningful difference to children in areas such as Scunthorpe. Moving forward, our priority must be to ensure that the measures in place meet the needs of those supported, and I will carry on working with my local authority and the schools in my area to make sure that we do our best—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I thank the hon. Lady for her speech, but her time has come to an end.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]
The shocking pictures we have all seen of the tiny portions of grated cheese, half-sliced tomatoes and, if lucky, half a pepper are a measure of the contempt that this Government have for low-income families. During the pandemic, we have seen the Government squander billions of pounds awarding contracts for failed systems and sub-standard produce to friends of the Tory party, whether qualified or not. Every tight-fisted parcel put together with as little food as they could get away with, and every carrot baton and half-cut fruit, is a symbol of the Government’s having been dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing on free school meals every step of the way. They would have got away with the penny-pinching food parcels for our country’s poorest children if one parent had not posted a picture online.
It is a similar story with the laptops. Barely any of the promised laptops materialised last year. The Government had months to plan for the likelihood of the winter lockdown. Their reluctance to do so has meant that today kids in my constituency cannot access their online lessons because they do not have hardware. Schools and children are relying on charity to bridge the shortfall. I am extremely proud of the way the people of Bedford and Kempston have responded to the Government’s failings during the pandemic. I want to thank Susan Lousada, the High Sheriff of Bedfordshire, who is leading a fantastic campaign to get laptops to pupils, with Bedfordshire Learning Link, Bedford Modern School, Bedford Borough Council, local businesses and rotary clubs, donations from the Harpur Trust, the Blues Foundation, and the generosity of other charities and individuals. It has been truly inspiring and a world of difference from the cynical, can’t-do attitude I have seen from this Government.
The gap between the haves and the have-nots has never been wider. The digital divide has never been more obvious. It is not just low-income families who are really struggling; it is the just-about-managing, whom the Prime Minister’s predecessors identified but did nothing to help. If the levelling-up agenda of this Government was anything more than an empty slogan, the Government would support the motion and invest in our children, starting with a comprehensive review of free school meals. Food poverty is an entrenched, long-term issue that requires a considered, long-term solution. Getting free school meals right is a good place to start.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) [V]
I appreciate that we are living in unusual times, but we should not forget that not once did Labour provide free school lunches for children when schools were not open. Not once did they provide free lunches for three to four-year-olds. It took a Conservative Government to ensure that that happened.
The Opposition motion asks for children to receive the full value of free school meals, yet nobody is arguing against that. Of course, some of the food parcels we have seen are not sufficient. Some have been excellent, but for some reason we have seen less coverage of those. They need to provide for a proper lunch for a child who needs it. That is not in dispute. Neither is the fact that we need to take action. There is no dispute that we need to help families at this time. The difference is how we support them.
What is really needed here is practical support for families who are having difficulties at this time. Handouts without support simply propagate dependency. We need to be empowering families to assist themselves, not chaining them to an overreliance on the state. We need to provide choice. That is why our package of support aims to do that for schools: the choice of a parcel of food or a voucher; the choice over which caterer to use; the choice of a local or national voucher. We have given £170 million to local authorities to provide targeted support to families who need it through the winter support fund. Even more is going to local authorities to support holiday programmes. This gives local authorities the ability to provide assistance not just to children eligible for free school lunches, but to families who have just missed out on eligibility for them or for struggling families who have children who have not started school yet. Nothing in the Opposition motion makes any mention of those people, yet they are very much a consideration for us. Over Christmas, we ensured that there was targeted support for children and families. That policy worked. The approach can be used again during the February half-term, with confidence that it will be a success.
The other part of the Opposition motion relates to laptops and other devices. Providing 1.3 million new laptops and tablets empowers families to help their children to learn when they otherwise would not. Thousands have been distributed in my constituency, with over 1,000 to one trust alone. No child should miss out on an education and this huge effort has helped to ensure that children do not miss out. There are hardly any other countries in the world that have provided more laptops to schoolchildren during this time than we have.
We can say that we have assisted children with both school lunches and technology. We have helped them probably more than any other country. There will always be more demanded of us. We will never reach the state where somebody says, “That’s enough, you can stop now.” But what we have provided and will continue to provide is a package of measures that provides empowerment, choice and assistance for thousands of children, and that should be fully recognised.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) [V]
The challenges currently facing
teachers, school support staff and childcare providers are daunting. Our teachers and education professionals in Enfield North have worked tirelessly, and for that I wish to thank each and every one of them. However, they have been trying to deliver world-class learning with one hand tied behind their backs. The lack of support from the Government has piled pressure on to families, who are struggling to juggle childcare, education provision and their jobs.
Labour’s motion calls for action now to alleviate the pressure on families by guaranteeing that children receive the full value of free school meals support, including in school holidays, and for a date to be set by which every pupil will have the equipment needed to learn remotely. We are not asking for the earth. We simply call on the Government to act swiftly and with compassion. It has been nearly a year since the pandemic began, yet we still see a Government chasing their own tail; a Government whose indecisiveness and lack of compassion have undermined public confidence in their capacity to act in the public interest.
The pictures we have seen of supposed free school meals being opened by families have incensed a nation. They not only demonstrate how the Government’s own rules are providing inadequate food to children but raise serious questions about how taxpayers’ money is being misspent by the Chancellor. It should concern us all that contracts continued to be agreed that happily swap £15 of Government funding for £7-worth of food. In Enfield North, almost 5,000 pupils are eligible for free school meals. Each one of those children has talent, skills and knowledge waiting to be unleashed, but they are being held back by a flailing Government that have had nearly a year to correct their own errors.
Families are also living with the consequences of under-resourced schools. The Government pledged to provide 1.3 million laptops, yet 600,000—the equivalent of more than 600 secondary schools full of children—have not been delivered. Sadly, things are no different in my constituency, where hundreds of children are still without a laptop. Kingsmead School still requires 100 laptops. Enfield County School for Girls requires 212. Lee Valley Academy still needs in excess of 120. I could go on. Each missing device represents a child being held back. Each empty plate represents a family deciding whether to put the heating on or to buy food. What remains constant under this Government is that families are being left behind due to incompetence and dithering.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
This is an incredibly important debate. We need to ensure that remote learning is high class for all pupils, regardless of the school they go to. I had the opportunity to raise in a question earlier the issue of live lessons and why they are so important for pupils with special educational needs, who may not have an education, health and care plan, which entitles pupils to still go to school. I spoke to a headteacher of a school that caters purely for dyslexic students this morning, and she explained to me how her school has all live lessons and how she thinks that is so important for pupils with dyslexia. I would like the Government to take that on board.
On free school meals—an issue with a lot of heat around it—I am proud of the support the Government have provided throughout the pandemic. I do not think there is an example of any Government in modern British political history that have been so ambitious in the support they have provided. I am talking about the £170 million winter grant scheme. I am talking about the more than £200 million committed to holiday activities and the food programme. Suffolk got £2 million from that £170 million fund, and less than half of that will be spent on guaranteeing that all eligible pupils got free school meals over Christmas and will get them over February. That leaves more than £1 million for other kinds of interventions to help all sorts of families—not only those with children eligible for free school meals but those who do not but are struggling as well. That is very much to be welcomed.
It has often been portrayed by the Labour party that that incredibly expensive and ambitious package of support was somehow cobbled together at the last minute. It absolutely was not. So much of what the Government have committed came directly from the national food strategy, which was commissioned in June 2019. Just this summer, I had the pleasure of the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), visiting my constituency, where we were a pilot for the holiday activities and food programme. She spoke passionately about how it was her ambition for that to be extended across the country. This has been a Government priority for a long time, and I have absolutely no concerns about whether this Government have at their heart the desire to support and cater for children who are struggling the most at this time.
In terms of the quality of free school meals, I support the comments made by a number of Members that the images we saw were unacceptable, but the reality is that these food parcels come about as a result of lots of individual decisions made by different local councils. Some decide to have vouchers. Some decide to have food parcels. Some food parcels are high-quality and others, as we have seen, are completely not. That is a result of many decisions—some made by Labour councils, might I add? I think that virtually all of us do care about this issue, but I do not think that supporting this particular motion is the best way of progressing. I am focused on results and action, not virtue signalling.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
May I just say that I do not want to turn this into a typical debate where we blame the Government for everything? We have a covid crisis that has shaken everyone’s lives. We have much higher unemployment than usual and many families are struggling, but the fact is that we know that the Government have shown less than the surest touch in many of the educational challenges that we have had over this last year.
However, to put that to one side, may I make a plea tonight to trust parents? I listen to a lot of parents. I happen to have three daughters, a son and 12 grandchildren, so it is easy to do that, but I also do it rigorously in my constituency all the time. The fact is that parents would prefer to have cash rather than any other kind of package of food. We all know that that leads to a divided society, with some kids thinking that they are lesser than their equals.
Trust parents on home schooling. Home schooling can be very good and it can be very patchy indeed. My experience and knowledge is that using technology is difficult if someone is a teacher. I am a pioneer tutor in the Open University. We thought we could do it all with computers, television screens and all that, but we could not. Teachers have to be trained to use the technology. University teachers have to be trained for something they never anticipated—teaching online. It is a highly difficult skill to learn.
I am sorry that the Government took so long to get in touch with the Open University and enable it to use all its resources, knowledge and experience to help teachers and lecturers up and down the country. That being said, let us also trust teachers themselves. I have seen the best example of teachers who phone every five-year-old in the class every week. That is wonderful—their experience, showing every way of reaching out to children. I believe that that is what we must encourage—every school learning to learn again—because we will have this situation for much longer. So well done, parents; you have gone through a hell of a lot. Well done, teachers. And well done, colleges of further education, which are so often neglected. It is not just about computers—it is about people.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) [V]
I put on record my thanks to all the staff at the schools in Wantage and Didcot who have worked tirelessly through the pandemic to make sure that children and young people get at least some education. I do not think that there is a Member of this House who does not want to see all children get high-quality, nutritious food, and have laptops and high-quality internet access. It is right that the Government have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on providing this.
However, when it comes to remote education, I am afraid that nothing we do could ever be a substitute for being in the classroom. If the Government were to provide a laptop to every home, along with the best internet connection in the land, I do not think that would solve the disadvantage gap or deal with the huge mental health crisis that is coming for children and young people. I am not even sure that it would lead to every child getting a full timetable of remote learning.
We saw a huge gulf in the remote learning that pupils received last year. There were many reasons for that, but one reason that the Labour party does not like to mention is that when we went into the first lockdown, the largest education union, the National Education Union, put out a statement saying that teachers should not be teaching a full timetable or routinely marking work. It said that we cannot educate children and young people remotely. Whereas the Labour party would suggest that the only barrier to remote education is whether the Government have provided laptops fast enough, I would say that the leadership of that union took a clear stance—personally, I do not think that it reflected the views of teachers—that inhibited the remote learning that pupils received last year.
Similarly, the shadow Secretary of State for Education says that she wants to see schools open—I am completely with her on that, because I think that is how we will tackle these issues—but when we wanted to reopen schools, I did not hear her criticise the 180-point checklist produced by the same union, on safety grounds, as though teaching children was like working with radioactive material. Similarly, I did not hear her criticise the constant drumbeat of stories suggesting that schools were unsafe and needed to be closed again.
We need to work to get all children back to school as soon as possible. Labour’s motion could have been about that, but it is not. I hope that when we come to reopen schools, Labour will call out anybody who stands in the way, because as much as children and young people need laptops, most of all they need to be in the classroom.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) [V]
The concept of remote learning leans heavily into the topic of digital exclusion—the exclusion of those who do not have the devices or data needed to access education. The Government may talk about addressing the issue, but yet again they are simply not doing enough, and what they are doing is at the latest possible moment.
The digital divide and the impact it is having on people’s lives was known about before the pandemic. It meant that people struggled to access services and information, and to engage with the digital world around them. When the pandemic arrived, it forced everyone indoors and into a digital world. It shone a light on the digital inequalities that already existed and, as time went on, exacerbated them. It was no longer a choice to work or access services from home, or for young people to access their education from home; it became a necessity. This situation accelerated the existing inequalities tenfold.
Remote learning became the only way for the vast majority of our children and young people to access their education. A clear divide opened up between those who had internet connection, data and devices, and those who did not. If the Government had invested in the procurement and distribution of devices on the first day of the pandemic, they would have been a Government acting too late, but 10 months later they have still not taken adequate action. We must remember that every day lost in education is a day of potential lost. There are still thousands of children up and down the country who are unable to access their education.
The Department for Education might say that it is going to provide 1 million devices, but that is not good enough. The actual digital divide, according to Ofcom, means 1.8 million people not having adequate connectivity. I am proud that organisations such as Laptops for Kids North East and the Good Things Foundation are reaching out to those in need in our communities and supporting people, giving them the data and devices they need, but they are having to do that because the Government have failed to do so.
This debate is rightly combined with the issue of free school meals. I applaud my neighbouring MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for campaigning on this issue for years; I agree with everything she said. It was heart-wrenching to see the images posted online last week of food parcels. Our children deserve so, so much more. The Government may try to pass the blame on to others, but it was their policy that got us into this mess. It is the Government’s responsibility to put this right and put it right fast by guaranteeing a substantial, healthy free school meal to all children who need one.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) [V]
I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to this debate on current educational issues. I should like to begin by praising teachers in my constituency and across the whole of the borough of Bexley, who have continued to work hard and professionally during this pandemic. Teaching today is more challenging than ever before, and certainly more so than when I was a teacher and lecturer in the past. We also need to praise the support staff in our schools.
The past year has been very difficult for everyone, and the Government have had to adapt their approach to the changing situation. The Government have been correct in their approach of making the education and welfare of our young people a top priority. Children need to learn and to socialise and to be in school when it is safe to be so. Parents, too, must be praised for rising to the challenges of combining work, home life and helping their children with virtual and remote school learning. There are real concerns about school closures, including mental health issues and the inadequate free school meal boxes. However, I want to concentrate on the issue of learning and studying at home during the pandemic.
Despite the totally unprecedented situation we have all faced since the start of the pandemic, the Government have worked tirelessly to ensure that every child has access to the world-class education they deserve, including by strengthening the minimum standards for remote learning and introducing binding requirements for schools to deliver high-quality remote education. Schools are now expected to provide between three and five hours of teaching a day, depending on a child’s age. Remote education provision is much better than it was a year ago, and we praise the Government for the money, the laptops and all the things they have done to make sure that schools can carry on with remote learning for our children.
A lack of internet connectivity is another significant barrier. As part of the continued efforts to support disadvantaged children through the get help with technology programme, the Government have partnered with the UK’s leading mobile phone operators to provide free data to those students without internet access, as well as delivering 54,000 4G routers to schools and colleges.
While the Government have strived to keep schools open, it is regrettable but necessary that they recently had to close them because of the pandemic. I have some concerns, as we all do, about remote learning, including the lack of physical and social interaction, the possibilities of experiencing technical difficulties and the effects of increased screen time. Education is very important for improving social mobility. It helps shape our young people’s futures and gives them opportunity. A good education provides the knowledge and skills required to succeed. I am a big supporter of social mobility for disadvantaged young people; it is absolutely essential.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]
This debate on free school meals cannot be separated from the earlier one on universal credit, because both prompt the question: why are over 14 million people living in poverty in the sixth richest country on earth? This endemic poverty is the result of a broken model and an ideological choice—one that the Conservative party chooses to make. Poverty has soared in this crisis, and the Government choose not to do all they can to tackle it, just as they made the choice to impoverish families with a decade of austerity.
The school food parcels fiasco highlights so much that is wrong with the system. It shows that when services are privatised and outsourced, profit is put first. How else can we explain Government guidelines that mean a £15 food parcel leaves kids with just £5-worth of food, with the vast majority going to the private companies? This is food literally taken from a child’s mouth, while the CEO of the company responsible for those shocking food parcels is paid £4.7 million per year—280 times more than its dinner ladies. It does not have to be this way. Leeds City Council gives proper food parcels to children by keeping the services in-house—public services run for the public good.
The food parcel scandal also shows that the Conservative party’s contempt for people in poverty knows no bounds. My party wants to see cash instead of food parcels going to families. The Conservatives disagree. They do not trust people in poverty to do what is best for their children. As a Conservative MP once disgracefully put it, the money could go direct to “a crack den” or “a brothel”.
But people are not in poverty because of a character failing, or because they do not work hard. People are in poverty because the broken economic model cannot provide them with a job that pays enough to live on, and because the Government refuse them the services they deserve. They include the tens of thousands of children in my region waiting for laptops so that they can work online. These kids deserve a proper chance in life. Their futures are not worth less than those of the children at the elite private schools that many members of the Cabinet attended, but the Government act like they are.
Finally, my party stood at the last election on a manifesto pledging both free broadband for the whole country and free school meals for all primary school children. Such policies are needed now more than ever. If this crisis has shown us anything, it is that the social safety net is broken. It is time to move back to a universal model.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) [V]
School is and always will be the safest and best place for a pupil to learn. Delivering remote education is a real challenge, as not every pupil has an environment at home that is easy to work in or has the necessary technology and connectivity. It is equally challenging for teachers to try to replicate as much as possible the learning environment of a normal classroom setting. Some £400 million has been spent on supporting schools and colleges in moving to remote provision, so that every child can access the education they deserve, with 700,000 laptops and tablets and 54,000 4G routers delivered. That is alongside the £5 million spent on our unsung heroes of the pandemic, the Oak National Academy.
With regard to free school meals, it is disappointing and disheartening to see the Labour party wanting to politicise such an important topic. I spent eight and a half years working as a teacher and a head of year in state secondary schools across London and Birmingham. Every day, I worked tirelessly to ensure that the next generation had the education they deserved, as well as looking after their welfare and wellbeing, in the privileged position of loco parentis. I understand how important free school meals are to young people and their families, yet the Labour party spreads misleading graphics, creating anger due to falsehoods, which leads to people calling colleagues and me “Tory scum”, to echo the comment made by the deputy leader of the Labour party towards my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson).
Those in the Labour party seem to believe that they own the monopoly on compassion; they believe that my being a Conservative somehow means that I do not care about the most vulnerable in my community. This is student union politics, intent on pitting people against one another, whereas we should recognise that child holiday hunger is an issue that should unite rather than divide us.
To help to tackle holiday hunger over the winter, including the February half-term, the Government announced a £170 million winter support package for not just those eligible for free school meals, but those of pre-school age and vulnerable and elderly adults in our local communities. That is in addition to the £63 million given to local authorities last June for food and other essential support. Stoke-on-Trent City Council has used the collected £1.5 million of funding wisely. Some 80,640 free school meals will be provided for students, with £110,000 for Stoke-on-Trent Foodbank, £30,000 for the amazing Hubb Foundation, which will partly fund slow cookers, ingredients and recipe cards for families for 12 weeks, and £60,000 for local charity Beat the Cold to provide 100,000 fuel vouchers to vulnerable households affected by fuel poverty.
I fully support the £220 million for the holiday activities and food programme, which means that this calendar year, a place can be offered to every child who is eligible for free school meals, enabling them to benefit from a healthy, nutritious meal, alongside physical and mental stimulation, which is equally important to a young person’s health.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) [V]
The digital lottery is hindering the life chances of children and the next generation. If the Government mean what they say about levelling up education, the standard of education and the life chances of working-class children must be front and centre of that agenda.
In early 2020, Ofcom’s technology tracker estimated that between 1.4 million and 1.78 million children under the age of 18 in the UK lived in households without access to a laptop, desktop computer or tablet. Add to that up to half a million people living in households with no access to the internet. A further 900,000 live in households where the only access to the internet is via a mobile phone. Those are very stark figures indeed.
Unlike in the previous lockdown, it is now a legal requirement for schools to provide a remote education. Perhaps that is driving the Government’s decision to relax the criteria on children being in schools, which is resulting in dangerously high attendance rates. The Government know they have yet again failed to plan, and are once again playing catch-up. A prime example of that can be seen in Northway Primary School in my constituency; it ordered 37 iPads from the Department for Education in October, but they were only delivered on 13 January. That is just one of many constituency examples that demonstrate that the Government were not even meeting demand prior to the school closure; they were failing to keep pace with smaller orders from schools supporting children isolating at home. This is simply not good enough, and clearly contributes to the fact that the gap in England between some pupils and their wealthier peers widened by 46% during the school year.
Labour’s 2019 manifesto pledge of free broadband was roundly mocked by professional commentators and Government politicians in the last election. The greatest tragedy of all is that the very thing that policy sought to address, digital exclusion, is wreaking havoc with the learning of the next generation. It is time for the Government to actually deliver on their “whatever it takes” promise, to ensure that the gaping inequalities in our education system are closed once and for all, and to prevent a whole generation of children from being robbed of a decent education, and the life chances that go hand in hand with that. Every child matters and deserves to succeed. Nothing less is good enough. Nothing less is acceptable.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) [V]
Tonight, I will focus on remote learning. That will give me the opportunity to pass on some of what I have heard from teachers about their experiences during the pandemic. My understanding is that, to put it simply, remote learning puts at a massive disadvantage the most vulnerable pupils, who may not have the same resources as others. They may not have somewhere quiet or even safe in which to work, and may be less inclined to continue their learning when not in school. We saw that those who did not attend live lessons during the first lockdown had an evident knowledge gap when they came back to school in September. According to teachers I have spoken to, we are seeing that play out once again, as those same pupils are not participating now. So that gap is becoming ever wider.
Significant investment has certainly been made in remote learning; millions have been invested in supporting remote education and access to online social care. As we have heard, more than 700,000 laptops and tablets have been delivered to disadvantaged children at schools and colleges, with hundreds of thousands more on the way. Ministers are working with major telecommunication companies to improve internet connectivity for disadvantaged and vulnerable families who rely on mobile internet connection, but we must go beyond those initial interventions, as some pupils are still missing from lessons.
Two key issues remain. The first is that children need interaction with their peers; mental health issues, with potential social care effects, arise from not having that. Of course, the best way to address that is to reopen schools safely, as soon as possible, which brings me on to the second issue. Although most teachers want to get back in front of children as soon as possible, many do not feel safe doing so. Many express anxieties about household mixing, and the hundreds of close interactions per day. To make them feel safer, school staff must be made a higher priority for vaccination, particularly those with underlying health conditions who are under the age of 50. They should get the vaccine soon, at least before the suggested reopening after half-term. Widespread vaccinations will engender a feeling of safety among school staff, and I believe this is the quickest way for schools to return to normal.
Teachers have made massive sacrifices. They have been unable to see their families for months. The only safe and fair way to reopen schools is following a vaccination programme among school staff, and I ask the Government to prioritise that. The future of schoolchildren, especially the most disadvantaged, depends on it. Our teachers have been nothing short of heroic, and they need our support. They are on the frontline, so now is the time to put them at the front of the line.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]
I shall focus my remarks on free school meals, because the public simply do not understand why struggling families are having to fight the Government again and again on this issue. Last week alone, there were two such fights: first, on the appalling-quality food packages that were sent out for children in place of free school meals, and secondly, on the Government’s instruction to schools not to provide free school meals during the February half-term, which left families confused and anxious about whether and how they would be able to access this lifeline.
In my constituency of St Albans, children in at least one primary school got boxes of food from HCL—Hertfordshire Catering Ltd—a preferred provider of Hertfordshire County Council. In that box, for a week, were just 10 items, including bread, baked beans, carrots, tomatoes and baking potatoes. There was a tin of tuna and two slices of processed cheese, but they were no good for the child who is dairy and fish intolerant. According to the guidance, there should also have been sweetcorn, yoghurts, apples, oranges, biscuits and a muffin, but they were not there. The public are sick of this Schrödinger’s school meals policy.
A few months ago, some Conservative MPs argued against extending free school meal provision to the holidays on the basis that it was the responsibility of struggling parents to feed their children, but in Hertfordshire, the Conservative-run county council is, so far, refusing to give parents responsibility for buying their own food, leaving them at the mercy of contractors who are dishing out half-empty boxes.
Let us not forget how many children living in poverty still do not get a free school meal at all, including children who would be eligible but have no recourse to public funds, and those kids whose parents are in receipt of universal credit. If the Government were serious about improving child nutrition and helping the families who are struggling the most, they would look at this issue again.
Liberal Democrats are proud of our track record on free school meals. In England, free school meals were a Liberal Democrat policy introduced by the coalition Government. Last autumn, Wales, which has a Liberal Democrat Education Minister, was the first UK nation to ensure that pupils received free school meals over the summer holidays, and it quickly delivered IT kit for the most disadvantaged pupils. Liberal Democrats are now calling on the Government for a “No ifs, no buts” long- term commitment on free school meals. Whether a child is in school or at home, during term time or holidays, every child in poverty who needs a decent meal a day should get one.
John Howell (Henley) (Con) [V]
I join colleagues in paying tribute to the teachers involved in delivering remote learning. Let me also say how proud I am of those teachers who are still going to school to teach the children of key workers; they greatly deserve our praise, because it is important to provide the best education that we can for those children. We have heard from the Secretary of State how he is doing that, and I am impressed with what we have done: we have spent £400 million and ordered 1.3 million laptops and other devices for children.
There are, though, some problems with delivery. I am pleased that the BBC has come into this debate, although one thing that that disguises is the difficulty of getting good broadband. Even in my constituency, one need not go more than a couple of miles outside the town of Henley to find poor broadband.
I am proud of what parents are doing, but I wish they were all like one of my constituents, who makes sure that her daughter dresses in school uniform to do her remote learning. My constituent, who is a teacher herself, says that is important; it brings about a noticeable improvement in the child’s concentration while learning remotely.
I heard the Secretary of State set out time limits for individuals to follow in the delivery of remote learning, but we will need to keep an eye on that because, while some schools are sticking to those limits, others are going well beyond them and are providing whole days of teaching rather than the bits of days of teaching that we have heard about.
Finally, let me ask just one question, which I do not think that anyone has mentioned so far. Can the Minister tell me what is being done to help blind students to participate in remote learning? They have needs of their own and it is very difficult to see how, on the face of it, they are being allowed to participate in this learning.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) [V]
One of the greatest tragedies of this pandemic is its impact on our children. Millions of young people have lost months of face-to-face schooling, missing out on their education and denied the social interaction that is so crucial to their development and wellbeing. Virtual schooling can never replace face-to-face learning, but while school buildings remain closed to most children, access to online education is vital. For some children, one of the barriers to online learning is a lack of equipment, which is why the Government are providing 1.3 million devices to schools across the country. This drive to purchase such an enormous quantity of laptops and tablets has involved co-ordinating multiple manufacturers, dedicated factory runs, and prioritising shipping. Against a backdrop of soaring global demand, the Department for Education has become one of the largest buyers of IT in the world. We must continue to deliver these devices at pace.
I commend Ministers and officials for their extraordinary efforts, but online learning also depends on schools’ ability to deliver virtual lessons. A year ago, teaching the entire curriculum remotely would have been unthinkable, but now teachers up and down the country are logging on to Zoom or Google Classroom, greeting their classes face to face and using innovative resources to teach lessons.
Having been in contact with local headteachers throughout the pandemic, I know that schools in Penistone, Stocksbridge, Ecclesfield, Chapeltown and Dodworth have made sustained efforts to create and refine their remote learning provision. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor helped to deliver a virtual maths lesson to year 6 at Oughtibridge Primary School in my constituency. He saw for himself just what is possible with interactive remote learning. I am pleased to report that the Chancellor’s maths is of a very high standard.
Our schools have transformed the way that they work while working to strict new public health guidance, operating test and trace and delivering catch-up schemes. On behalf of children and parents across my constituency, I want to say a huge thank you.
On free school meals, we need to differentiate between lunches provided by schools during term-time and wider welfare support offered to struggling families. The continuation of free school meals has never been in doubt. During lockdowns, the Government have offered the choice of food parcels or supermarket vouchers to support children and learning from home. In terms of wider help, the pandemic has caused real hardship to many families. I welcome the covid winter support grant, providing £170 million to local councils to tackle food poverty this winter, including during school holidays. I support the measures that the Government have taken to help families over the past year, but what our children need now is a rapid return to the classroom, and I wholeheartedly support the Secretary of State in his determination to make that happen.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]
I am dismayed, but not surprised that, yet again, we are having to put pressure on this Government to do the right thing by hungry children in the middle of a pandemic. In the first five weeks of the initial lockdown, more than 2 million children experienced food insecurity. More than 4 million children are living in poverty. They are hungry every single day, every day of the year with no let-up in sight. Any decent Government would be proactively doing everything in their power to make sure that every single one of those children had access to nutritional healthy food.
The Secretary of State, at the outset of this debate, predictably reeled off schemes and grants that the Government have put in place. They were schemes and grants that they had to be shamed into providing, just as we saw last week, when yet another one of their associates was given public money to deliver meagre food parcels that, disgracefully, met the Government’s own guidelines. The Secretary of State is also missing the point. If the winter covid grant, the holiday activities and food programmes, the national school breakfast programme, and school meals vouchers and parcels were leaving no child without why are food banks inundated with desperate parents seeking help for their children? Why is it that UNICEF, for the first time in its 70-year history, is feeding hungry children? Of course, in the absence of any other support, I would not wish for these piecemeal and short-term schemes and grants to disappear. I will continue working with the Magic Breakfast scheme to press for the implementation of my School Breakfast Bill, because when the scheme ends in July, many children will be left with that gnawing hunger in their stomach at the start of their school day, and we all know that no matter how talented or amazing a teacher is, that hunger will impact on learning.
Just last week, Sustain found that £700 million from the soft drinks levy that was intended for school breakfast provision is unaccounted for. I hope that the Minister can confirm where that money has gone when she sums up. As the Food Foundation has recently called for, we need to rethink school meal provision, but we also need to stop looking at school meals in isolation. The reason that so many children are in poverty and going hungry is that we have had over a decade of cruel policy making that has plunged families into destitution and despair. That there are hungry children in a country as rich as ours is no accident, and it is not purely a result of this pandemic.
To those Government Members who have spent all day claiming that tonight’s debates and votes do not matter, I simply say this: they matter to millions of children and families; and they matter to the 3,000-plus children in South Shields who receive free school meals. How Members vote tonight lets them and all our constituents know what we stand for, who we are, and, more importantly, who it is that we really care about.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Last week, I emailed all the headteachers in my Birmingham, Northfield constituency to see what the situation was like on the ground in respect of free school meals and laptops. I just want to go through some of their responses. Many reported to me that parents preferred the voucher system that is coming back this week, as opposed to the packages, because the vouchers allow greater flexibility and choice. There can be a stark difference between schools. Some schools said they were preparing over 100 packages, but only 20 were being picked up; I think the voucher system was having a near 100% take-up rate, so it is really important that it is restarting this week.
The vast majority of the schools said that they were using the city council’s Cityserve scheme, and there were a range of views about the adequacy of those food packages, from “okay” to “severely inadequate”. Unfortunately, many teachers have really had to push back on the city council to ensure that they are getting value for money, with some estimating that the £15 packages were really only worth about £4. Birmingham City Council has often been very critical of the Government’s approach, and it is about time that its words and actions met in the middle, but it did also step up to the mark.
On laptop provision, there was quite a bit of disparity between schools. Some had received 100% of their allocation. Others had only a few, but were expecting big deliveries this week. I will be following up with them later this week to ensure that they get what they have been allocated. One headteacher suggested that schools should be given a budget so that they could buy some laptops themselves. That would add some capability to the procurement system, as they could probably find some local providers. Some of my infant schools suggested that some laptops be allowed for use in infant schools, because of the three hours of remote learning each day.
I thank the many teachers who have been working extremely hard to ensure that children are being educated at the moment, balancing the very difficult task of teaching in a classroom and digitally. They have been working incredibly hard, and everybody in the House recognises that work. I also thank the many parents who are juggling working from home with helping to home school their children. I was talking to my best friend Michaela last night, and we were giggling at some of the things she was having to teach her young boys because it took us back to our school days. It is very difficult—I probably would not remember some of it myself now—but it is important that those parents are going above and beyond every day. We must all be thankful to them.
On the whole, the Government have got this absolutely right. It is incredibly important that we tackle these issues head-on, and provide these vital food vouchers and laptops for children.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) [V]
First, I pay tribute to teachers, as well as those at my local authority, Calderdale Council, working alongside them to support children, their wellbeing and their education at home and in the classroom. Schools throughout this difficult period have been beacons of resilience and innovation, and I am in awe of the personal contribution that teachers have made to this national effort.
Teachers do a really good impression of superheroes, but they are human beings, and they cannot perform magic tricks, nor can they create more hours in the day. Asked to respond to testing announcements on the last day of term, heads were notified at 8 pm that schools would close to some children from the very next day. They will make happen what needs to happen, but I urge the Government simply to respect what is humanly possible when introducing changes and the timeframes in which they expect those changes to be delivered.
I have been delighted to see brilliant local teachers from Halifax, including Matt Perry, Gugsy Ahmed and Mungo Sheppard, on local and national news outlining the challenges they have been faced with and their constructive asks on behalf of the kids to whom they dedicate their lives. Their biggest challenge has been securing equipment for children who do not have it, as so many other Members have already said, to allow learning to continue remotely. Just one secondary school in Halifax, in a ward where a third of children aged nought to 15 live in income-deprived households, has been unable to secure the 171 further laptops it needs to equip just those children on pupil premium with a laptop or tablet from the Department for Education, and the picture is not dissimilar right across the borough.
I take this opportunity to thank the Community Foundation for Calderdale and Calderdale Council, which together have launched the “Laptops for Learning” campaign today, which follows the success of their much-needed “Never Hungry Again” campaign. They are stepping in to fundraise for laptops, in addition to ensuring that children are not going hungry throughout this period. What do towns do when they have not got a community foundation? Ours has supported Calderdale through so much, alongside a council that goes over and above to do whatever it needs to for our families and their children. This Government need to understand that they are failing children on both those fronts.
The final point that I will have time to make this evening is that a school today told me that because of the private finance initiative arrangements on its school building, which only opened in 2016, Interserve, which has the ongoing catering contract as part of that arrangement, has notified the school to expect a loss of earnings bill for between £30,000 and £50,000 due to the lack of children coming through its canteen to buy lunch. That is outrageous, and I anticipate this problem is about to creep up on schools across the country. In closing, I very much hope the Minister will join me in calling on those companies to rule out such grossly unfair bills for our schools.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
May I put on record my thanks to the hard-working teachers, headteachers and school staff of Darlington for their tireless efforts in keeping going during what has been the most difficult year they will ever have faced? We were all shocked by the images of the substandard food packages that circulated last week, which were not acceptable on any level.
I also record my thanks to Conservative-controlled Darlington Borough Council, which has done so much with the funds from Government to support people, such as investing in additional vehicles to work with the Bread and Butter Thing, a food redistribution scheme that I have been privileged to support. It has diverted 180 tonnes of food from landfill, delivered 250,000 meals and been supported by more than 2,500 hours of volunteering.
From the £170 million covid winter grant that Darlington received, £364,000 has enabled the council to ensure that every child eligible for free school meals was fed over Christmas and will continue to be fed over the half-term holidays. The Government’s innovative holiday activities and food programme, which is being rolled out across the country this Easter, will continue to ensure that no child goes hungry, and that they can also engage in enriching activities. The Opposition wish to drive a divisive agenda, feeding a narrative that it is only they who care—a narrative that fuels the hateful campaigns seen by many of us on the Government Benches. Kinder, gentler politics it is not.
We all know that children learn best when they are at school, but for many it is not possible, and it is wonderful to see the schemes that have been brought forward by the Government to step up the delivery of devices. In Darlington, more than 70% of the devices requested by schools have already arrived and are being used. Darlington’s secondary schools have received all of what they asked for, and it is right that examination-level students have taken priority. The picture among primary schools is still emerging. I have written to the Minister in that regard, and I thank her for her engagement with me on that. I know that devices are continuing to arrive as quickly as they can be delivered.
This Government’s commitment to delivering one of the world’s largest programmes of technology is remarkable, and they deserve credit for making such a huge commitment to our children, the benefit of which will continue into the future. When the chips were down, this Government have stepped in, putting food on the plates of our children so they do not go hungry and equipment in their hands to ensure they can continue to learn. That was the right thing to do. Tonight we have seen Labour play its games and drive division, and already it is pushing its hateful posts in every seat it lost in the north. It is clear that it will never learn.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) [V]
The provision of home schooling—[Inaudible.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. There is something deeply wrong with the sound system. We will try to come back to Yasmin Qureshi, but meanwhile we will go to Brendan Clarke-Smith.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) [V]
One thing we have learned with this virus is that sometimes drastic steps have to be taken at very short notice. I know from personal experience that nothing can be a substitute for in-person teaching, but I also know that we have a profession committed to doing its best to make sure it can offer as near an experience to that as possible. Schools of course have never been closed. Our schools have stayed open throughout to support the children of critical workers and our must vulnerable pupils. Our teachers are doing an incredible job, sometimes having to balance both virtual and physical teaching simultaneously. I also want to say thank you to all the other staff working at schools, who are sometimes forgotten.
That is why I am delighted that this Government have helped to provide extra support for remote learning—be it laptops or routers going out to those in need, the work we have done with mobile phone companies on data allowances or the excellent resources on Oak National Academy. We have provided a £400 million package to support children and their families, including the £170 million covid winter grant scheme to help with food and bills. To spread this money too thinly would be a mistake, and it is absolutely right that we use that to target those most in need.
We have also increased spending on school meals to £15 per child. It is a shame, then, that some have misrepresented free school lunches as meals for the entire day or, indeed, for the entire family; they are not. However, the support is there for those who genuinely need help. We have been clear in our guidance throughout about what we expect to be in food parcels. When school contractors do not provide that, it is right that they are pulled up and challenged.
Opposition days should be a chance to have a healthy debate, not an exercise in generating fake news and misrepresenting parliamentary votes by the likes of The London Economic or TheyWorkForYou. We have seen some disgraceful abuse of colleagues, particularly female colleagues, and attacks on their offices. Last week, somebody even threatened to cut the brakes on my car because they did not like my last speech in an Opposition day debate. Unfortunately, Opposition day debates are fast becoming to effective scrutiny and democratic engagement what “Mrs Brown’s Boys” is to quality television and comedy.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
Children cannot learn when they are hungry, and children who are malnourished cannot possibly reach their potential or lead happy and fulfilling lives. Last week, we saw another appalling episode in the Government’s approach to the wellbeing of children in the delivery of food parcels. The parcels, which were nearly identical to the Government guidance on food parcel content, were an insult. It is time that the Government treated families with respect and gave parents the money that they need to feed their children. The Government’s refusal to provide free school meals over half-term is a real blow to families up and down the country.
The Government are failing families over food, and they are failing them too over access to online learning. They dithered over school closures. On 3 January, the Prime Minister said that primary schoolchildren should “absolutely” be in school in those areas where schools are open; then the very next day, he changed his mind and announced that schools across England must move to remote provision from the following day except for vulnerable children and the children of key workers. Yet again, this Government heaped pressure on families, leaving them practically no time to sort out childcare, and yet again, they created chaos for teachers and school support staff, giving them insufficient time to prepare. The Government have been warned repeatedly about the very large number of children and young people who do not have a device and access to the internet. Hundreds of thousands of pupils are still waiting to get connected. Instead of delivering the equipment that pupils need, the Government redefined those children
“who may have difficulty engaging with remote education at home (for example due to a lack of devices or quiet space to study)”
as vulnerable. As a result, there has been a massive increase in the number of children attending schools during this lockdown. A primary school teacher in my constituency wrote to me, saying,
“Overall we have 50% of children in school and my class actually has 70% of children in school…I am working to meet the needs of my class and then coming home to meet the needs of my home learners”.
The Government are causing unnecessary stress to teachers, pupils and parents. They are also putting at risk the public health programme by increasing the risk of infection in our communities. What is more, they are putting our less affluent communities at the highest increased risk of infection, fuelling existing health inequalities. Did the Government not think this through? Their disregard for the health outcomes of those who are disadvantaged, and cannot afford space or laptops for their children and the people who teach them, is shameful.
Instead of reclassifying children as vulnerable, the Government should make sure that every child has internet access at home if they need it. They must make sure that pupils who are eligible for free school meals get the support that they need all year round, and set out an ambitious strategy to tackle child poverty that addresses low pay and insecure work. They must rebuild the social security system, and finally, they must put the health and wellbeing of children at the heart of Government policy.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) [V]
It is generous of the Opposition to call a debate on an area of policy in which the Government are leading the way. Ministers, faced with a backdrop to public policy decisions that is the most challenging possible, have worked tirelessly to deliver. Across the country most people have made huge efforts in response to covid, none more so than our teachers. I have seen the efforts made by teachers in Stoke-on-Trent, who deserve all our thanks for continuing the learning of our young people and protecting the most vulnerable. We are all struggling, and it is right that we debate how the Government’s good intentions can be delivered most effectively, especially for the most vulnerable.
The Government are not alone in having a responsibility to tackle this crisis: we all share a responsibility for our younger and future generations. Unfortunately, not everyone has recognised this. It is appalling to see some Labour-backed unions playing politics and doing everything possible to prevent the learning of our young people, even suggesting that remote learning is an invasion of privacy, when we all know that it is possible to use a filter on most remote platforms. The Government were right to try to keep schools open for as long as possible, and I know they are keen to get schools reopened as soon as they can. No matter how good remote learning is, it is a poor substitute, and I know from teachers in Stoke-on-Trent South that the last time pupils returned to school from lockdown, there was a notable performance gap, especially among the most disadvantaged pupils.
Schools being closed also has a more serious consequence. Last week, I met remotely with representatives of New Era, which provides domestic abuse services in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire—I am grateful to them for sharing their insights. It is worrying that the number of children and young people seeking support dropped nationally by 6,000, while the number of domestic violence victims has increased significantly during lockdown. I hope that issue will be investigated further. According to the Local Government Association, referrals to social care have tragically increased to a 10-year high.
Lockdown has also hit a whole range of families mentally and financially when it comes to juggling their work and childcare responsibilities. In many cases, the strain has been too hard, and the school and community support networks that families rely on are just not there now. It is therefore particularly welcome that through the Government’s covid winter grant scheme, Stoke-on-Trent City Council received over £1 million to support the hardest-hit families. As a father of a three-year-old, I am personally grateful that the Government have also kept early years education open to all, and I am glad that support bubbles, which provide vital support for families at this very difficult time, have been maintained.
As we get the virus under control thanks to everyone’s efforts, and with the increased roll-out of vaccines, there is understandably a real eagerness among parents to get children back into the classroom as soon as possible. When we do reopen, we must ensure that there is intense catch-up, so that no pupil is left behind.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We will go back to Yasmin Qureshi.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) [V]
The provision of home schooling is really important, because in the lockdown last year we saw that education provision for those in the private sector was very different from that for those in state schools. We all know that the state school budget is a bare minimum, and the schools were not able to respond to the crisis properly.
The Office for National Statistics reports that 700,000 11 to 18-year-olds had no home internet access from a suitable device, and 68% said that they could not do their work without it. For some reason, last year the Government decided to cut the allocation of laptops by 80%. They have now found another £100 million to get more laptops, but we know that £135 million is required.
Last year, when Scotland used predicted grades for exam results, the Government caused another problem that affected poor people and students in state schools by insisting on using the algorithm. Many constituents rang me about their futures, crying their hearts out, and although the Government did a U-turn, it was too late for some of them.
Now the Government have cancelled GCSEs and A-levels, which I welcome. However, no decision has been made on the BTEC, which about 1 million students will be taking. My local community college principal, Bill Webster, contacted me to ask what he should be doing. In the end, he decided to cancel the BTEC. I have to say, I agree with him. Frankly, the lack of preparation by the Government is unacceptable.
On food provision, since 2010 in my constituency child poverty has gone up from 25% to 39%. That is unacceptable, bearing in mind that we are the fifth largest economy in the world. Recently, we saw those food packages—£5-worth of food from a company given £30. It is not surprising that the company is linked to the Tory party. We have also had countless PPE procurement scandals from using the VIP lane without scrutiny. I ask the Government why track and trace was given not to local authorities, but to Serco, whose bosses are connected with the Conservative party.
A number of Conservative Members have said that we in the Labour party are making a party political point. We are not. The fact is that the children who are suffering the most tend to be in our constituencies, and this Government have not bothered about them. The Government should provide decent food and decent education.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Thank you for squeezing me in, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I take the opportunity to add my thanks to the teachers and parents, but let us also remember the children themselves, who are working hard in awful circumstances to further their education. However, hungry children do not learn. Last Friday alone, I was contacted by five constituents who, faced with the withdrawal of vouchers, simply would not have enough food to feed their children. The cost of living has been raised because children have to stay and eat at home—not by much, but so many families are living on the margins that it does not take much to push them over the line into absolute poverty.
Most of those families are in work. In insecure, low-paid work and facing rising household debt, they rely on food banks and voluntary aid run by churches, community groups, Feeding Britain or, in my area, the brilliant Welcome Network. Next time hon. Members who support the Government go to a photo opportunity at a food bank, they should remember that, in Chester at least, not one volunteer wants food banks to continue a day more than they must, or thinks that they are a thing to be celebrated—they are a mark of shame and of the failure of our society and the Government.
The Government must start taking this seriously, not lurching as we seem to do from one crisis to the next, as they face the anger of the public, roused by Marcus Rashford. The Government need to invest and to review food for children in the whole day and the whole week—Healthy Start vouchers, universal credit, free school meals and support during school holidays all need to be joined up, looking at whether they are fit for purpose.
Last March, I raised with the Minister the clawback of unspent money from free school meals. I am unclear yet that things have changed. Things will not change until the level of in-work poverty is properly addressed in this country. It drags the country down not only economically, but socially and morally. It now seems as if there is appetite for real change and real justice from the Government.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) in what has been a heavily over-subscribed debate. I regret the fact that we will not be able to deal with every single speech individually.
In closing the debate, let me return us to some fundamentals. First and foremost, this place matters, resolutions of this House matter and this vote matters. It is about whether families receive the money they need to make sure that no child goes hungry. It is about whether we trust parents to spend that money, or whether we prefer to see it top-sliced and going into the pockets of others. It is about getting every child online, making sure that no child learning from home is excluded from education. Frankly, for all the complaints about politics, which always strike me as ironic in the House of Commons, this motion would not be necessary if the Government had simply been doing their job.
The second fundamental is that it is our responsibility—the responsibility of all Members of the House, whether on the Opposition Benches, the Government Benches or the Government Back Benches—to expect high standards from Ministers and to hold them to those high standards on behalf of our constituents. We all recognise that the Government have a difficult job in these most extraordinary circumstances. That is why we sought to be a constructive Opposition, facilitating the passage of Government business, often with little debate and insufficient scrutiny. It is why we supported a range of measures brought forward to help our country through the pandemic.
However, we should not and will not be bystanders to the level of failure we have seen from the Department for Education: the free school meals rows, with Ministers not once, not twice, but three times having to be dragged to do the right thing; the nine months it has taken to deliver 700,000 laptops and 50,000 dongles, which still falls so far short of what is needed; the exams debacle last year that saw the futures of young people plunged into chaos—and worse still, no plan for this year either; the way in which the Department for Education has short-changed schools, leaving headteachers worried about how they will balance the books by the end of the year and whether they have put enough funding into their safety measures; the fact that the Government failed to listen on testing, and rushed out a plan on the last day of term, only to change those plans again and again and again. They announced a plan for the January reopening during the school holidays and then changed it again and again and again—on one occasion changing the helpful infographic on the Department for Education’s social media channels three times within a matter of hours, such was the confusion and chaos—allowing millions of children to return on the first day of term, only to close schools the very same day, having told those headteachers, parents and children that that absolutely would not happen.
We cannot praise staff in schools and school leaders in one breath and then in the other defend the leadership they have been subjected to under this Secretary of State for Education. If the Prime Minister had any judgment, he would have sacked the Secretary of State, and if the Secretary of State had any shame, he would have resigned. That is the problem I have with the speeches we heard from Government Members this evening: the tyranny of low expectations—expectations for other people’s children that they would never accept for their own. On free school meals, it is not only that the poor quality delivered by providers was so obviously abysmal but the fact that it only barely fell short of the standards that the Department set for those providers, in collusion with those providers, with maybe a couple of tins of meat, a tin of sweetcorn or a couple of tomatoes missing. That is absolutely not the sort of lunch any Member of this House would expect for their children.
I mentioned the delay on getting the laptops and dongles out, but here is the real crux of it: even if the Government deliver the 1.3 million laptops they promised —they still have not told us when those laptops will arrive—that still falls well short of the demand that we know exists, with 1.8 million children not having access to a device at home, and ignores the reality confronting many parents. As we heard from one of our own this evening, even if there is a laptop at home, and maybe an iPad too, it does not mean that a parent with more than one child—maybe two or three—has devices for them all.
We heard a rosy picture painted by the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), who told us that there is no problem in Bury—everyone is fine. That was curious, because the cabinet member for children’s services there tells me this evening that, in fact, the laptops are on order, and if those laptops arrive, perhaps then there will be fewer children in overcrowded classrooms. Right now, they are in school because the Government did not get them a device. As we heard so powerfully from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), there is example after example, school after school, where we have not seen sufficient provision of laptops.
But the most fundamental failure of all is that we went into this pandemic with a digital divide. We went into this pandemic with a widening attainment gap. We went into this pandemic with rising child poverty. It is no good Government Members talking about social policy as if it had just been invented; the last Labour Government lifted nearly 1 million children out of poverty. If they want our help, we will help them to end child poverty; the problem is the poverty of ambition from the Government.
We cannot surrender to the idea that any of this is good enough. We cannot give in to the inevitability of higher poverty, lower standards in education and a wider gap in attainment because of a pandemic. Nor should any Member of the House give in to the idea that this House does not matter, that the Government should ignore the will of the House or that Members should sit on their hands when something as fundamental as keeping every child learning and fed is up for debate and decision.
On the Opposition side of the House, we are ambitious for our country. We are ambitious for every child. We are ambitious that beyond this difficult and dark period of our national story, there is a better and brighter future to be built. We are willing to work on a cross-party basis if the mission is there to end child poverty. We are willing to work on a cross-party basis to get every child learning. We are willing to work on a cross-party basis to get children back to school as quickly as possible. The problem is not a willingness to co-operate, the problem is not politics; the problem is leadership, a lack of ambition from this Government and the grotesque display of incompetence we have seen from Ministers in the Department for Education throughout this pandemic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
This Government want to see children, young people and adults fully connected so that they can access our world-class education, and we recognise the importance of a nutritious lunch to help children concentrate while they learn. I thank all the Members who have spoken in tonight’s debate. Many of them have taken the time to thank staff in schools, and I agree with them. I say thank you to our schools, but I also thank our early years, our colleges, our social workers who support vulnerable children, our families—and I say thank you to our children, too.
We must all do everything we can to support those who need help most at this time. On free school meals, the Prime Minister has said again and again that no child should go hungry because of this pandemic, and every single Member of this House agrees. Children should not miss out on a school lunch because school is closed to them. The contents of some of the lunch parcels that we saw on social media last week were completely unacceptable. Lunch parcels should be balanced and nutritious. The Secretary of State for Education and I immediately met leading school food suppliers to demand urgent action to make sure that lunch parcels are of a high standard.
We are in a global pandemic and no one should be profiteering on free school meal contracts, but some Opposition Members suggested that those contracts were with the Government. That is simply not true. Schools are responsible for their relationships with their own caterers—through the local authority if the local authority runs schools. Schools are doing a phenomenal job at this time. If parents have a problem with a school meal parcel, they should contact the school first to resolve it, but if that does not sort it out, we have set up a hotline so that parents can call us. The small number of complaints that we have already received have been individually investigated and sorted.
Schools can decide whether to offer lunch parcels or local vouchers, or use the national voucher scheme. Some schools and parents prefer those parcels, because that helps them keep in contact at this challenging time. The all-party parliamentary group on school food recommends and supports the use of lunch parcels. That all-party group is chaired by a Labour MP.[Official Report, 21 January 2021, Vol. 687, c. 6MC.]
It is up to schools to decide how they want to sort out their own provision, but our national voucher scheme has reopened today. As of 5 o’clock this evening, more than 6,500 orders had been placed by schools, worth a total of £12.7 million. Parents have already started converting over £1.1 million-worth of codes into supermarket vouchers. That is well ahead of the schedule expected.
The current advice on school meals covers the time up to half-term, because that is the period when we currently know schools will for many children remain restricted. However, I want to be absolutely clear that children will be receiving food over February half-term. We started planning for that many months ago when we announced the £170 million covid winter grant scheme. Many Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Steve Brine), for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) spoke about how it is working in their own constituencies with parcels, vouchers or holiday clubs. The covid winter grant scheme is there to support the most vulnerable families, including children not of school age. It is there to help not only with food, but with other essentials such as energy bills. It is there to help with food for the whole day, not just at lunchtime. It is there for families and individuals who need extra support at this time. It was there in the Christmas holidays and it will be there through term-time. It will be there at half-term.
We have also announced our brilliant holiday activities and food programme, which will run all across the country from next Easter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) all praised the scheme. It means that eligible children in every local authority area will be able to access healthy food and take part in fun activities over Easter, summer and Christmas if they need it—food, fun and friendship.
On technology, during the summer term we delivered more than 220,000 laptops and tablets, prioritising children with a social worker, care leavers and disadvantaged 10-year-olds. We have now distributed over three quarters of a million. Just last week, the Government confirmed the purchase of a further 300,000, which will take the total number of laptops and tablets we will be distributing up to £1.3 million. That is on top of the 2.9 million that were already owned by schools before the start of the pandemic. We are literally ordering and delivering laptops and other devices as fast as manufacturers can make them, at a time of peak global demand. Some 139,000 devices were delivered between 4 and 11 January—the first week of term. It is a phenomenal logistical effort.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) asked about British Telecom. We ran a pilot in partnership with BT to provide our children and young people with free access to a BT wi-fi hotspot, but we did not extend it because the pilot found that it did not suitably meet the needs of children and young people for a reliable and consistent internet connection. However, we have partnered with all the UK’s leading mobile providers, including BT, to provide free data uplifts to disadvantaged families. We have provided 54,000 4G wireless routers and we will continue to provide more. They have a roaming sim card so the router can find the strongest signal for 4G locally, making them more reliable even in areas where the signal may not be strong. We have extended our technology programme to 16 and 17-year-olds, many of whom already got devices through the bursary scheme. We are also extending more technology to our adult learners, because we support everyone who wants to access education at any stage of life.
My hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich, and for Henley (John Howell), mentioned the importance of accessibility for those with special educational needs and disabilities. There has been massive progress and innovation in this area during the pandemic, which will make a huge difference for some of our most vulnerable children.
The best place for children and young people to learn is at school, and I am very proud that we are one of the few countries that have kept schools open for our most vulnerable children. We know that it is not possible for all to attend at this time, but we are doing everything in our power to make remote education a reality for all. No child should go hungry because of the pandemic. We are prepared. We are providing free school meals to children over the half-term and in the holidays ahead. Our Government projects do that and so much more.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I name the Tellers, let me make it absolutely clear, for those who appear not to understand our procedures, that it matters not on which side of the House a Member sits; if he or she chooses to oppose a motion, that is up to him or her. If two Tellers present themselves to me now to vote against a motion, I will take them at their word and at face value, and we will have a Division. There is no discretion for the Chair.
Question put.
Business without Debate
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Covid-19: Schools
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
First, I recognise that the Speaker is very keen for us to take part in debates remotely where possible, and I fully respect that. However, given that teachers continue to deliver face-to-face education to essential workers’ children in testing circumstances, it seemed only right that I should come here and represent them in person. Please be assured, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have seen no one, and I am extra careful with my personal hygiene.
The past 10 months have been extraordinarily difficult for schools and our teachers. They have learned to adapt at very short notice in response to a seemingly ever-changing environment. If nothing else, today I want to recognise this extraordinary effort, and the hard work of headteachers and their staff across west Cornwall and on Scilly, and around the UK.
The environment has been no less challenging for the Department for Education, which, rather than setting the agenda, finds itself sandwiched between the Department of Health and Social Care, whose job is, rightly, to get on top of this dreadful disease, and the Treasury, whose concern for livelihoods and jobs is equally valid. I am not here to find fault in anything or anyone, but rather to represent my constituents, who include teachers and parents, and see what can be done to reset the relationship with frontline teaching staff and the Department for Education as we set about 2021.
As I have children learning from home, I now share my living room with teachers, who present themselves each morning, in among the Thomas family chaos, via iPad screens to give my boys the best start in life. I see at first hand the engagement, commitment, patience and interactive capabilities of our teachers. I am in unity with many other parents on this, I am sure: let me put on record how ridiculously challenging it is to keep just two school-age children head down and eyes forward for any length of time at home. If my wife and I are alone in this, then please will someone send me the tonic they are using on their children?
Prior to this pandemic, I made it a habit to visit a school each week—I have at least 50 across the patch—so I have a reasonable idea of the challenges that schools face in normal times. Since March, I have kept in close communication with a number of headteachers, so that I can support them where possible, raise parents’ concerns in a constructive manner, and understand the Herculean efforts the schools have made to keep education going.
I said at the start that there is a need to reset the relationship between our teachers and the Department for Education. This unprecedented situation presents unavoidable difficulties. I fully accept this, as do our schools. However, there are some small tweaks that would make the world of difference, and I have identified these under three headings: communication, expectation and recognition. None of these will come as any surprise, I am sure, but it is important that they be laid out clearly.
From the outset, communication has been challenging for schools. Often they hear changes to guidance via the media first. Just as they are set to down tools for a much-needed rest at a weekend or school holiday, the requirements for schools change, and heaven and earth must be moved to inform teachers, support staff and parents. This guidance often comes out in yards of text, and then is shortly revised, but headteachers cannot always see what has changed. If the revisions were easily identifiable, it would be a leap forward for hard-pressed headteachers and their senior school managers. Last-minute changes in guidance can lead to confusion and frustration, and put schools at loggerheads with parents.
I fully support the Government’s determination to keep schools open and, where possible, to keep exams on the table. However, I hope we have learned that nothing is certain and that schools would be better served if they were able to anticipate various scenarios, so that they can be prepared to an extent. The landscape is unknown and has been for some time, and we must find a way to communicate with schools what the outcomes may be based on the rate of infection. The stress on children and staff should not be underestimated. If the profession is more involved in the process effectively, many pitfalls could be avoided. Schools have the experience to identify what will be the results of certain decisions before the mistake happens.
In relation to communication, all schools have a robust complaints procedure. Surely it is for us to stress that parents who have concerns about remote provision are encouraged to talk to the headteacher and follow the complaints procedure, rather than revert to Ofsted from the outset. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State encourage parents to refer to schools in relation to free school meals. Driving division between parents and teaching staff is not in the interest of children’s education and serves to wear down teaching staff further. It would be a helpful step if the Department for Education made it clear that parents should talk to schools in the first instance when they have a concern.
The expectation on our schools has been quite extraordinary, and their response has largely met that expectation. Who anticipated this time last year that we would be asking schools to stay open for essential workers’ children while teaching all other pupils at home? I have nothing but admiration for teachers who have navigated this seismic challenge. Teaching a group of children face to face and appreciating the individual curiosities of each child, responding to their personalities and capabilities and walking hand in hand as they grow, learn and develop is a most rewarding vocation. To be frank, very little of that can be replicated via a flat screen, and I imagine that thousands of teachers are exhausted and demotivated because the very act of classroom teaching has been so impacted due to social distancing and remote teaching, with schools now largely closed. These measures cannot and should not be ignored—they are important—but the impact on teachers should not be underestimated. We must work to reassure teachers that there is a way through this and keep them on board.
I want to raise some specific examples of the expectation we place on teachers. The first is the expectation in relation to essential workers’ children. The Government have said that children of essential workers and children who do not have good connectivity can go to school. In some cases in my constituency, that has led to two thirds of the classroom turning up. Can the Government set out clear criteria for essential workers, so that those who need it least are lowest priority and schools have the opportunity to refuse when it is absolutely necessary?
There is the expectation on school budgets. Cornwall Council advised me that pupil premium funding will be allocated using October data, rather than January data, despite the changes in family circumstances due to the pandemic. Can the Minister confirm which data should be used to allocate the pupil premium and, in relation to that, free school meals? Furthermore, schools tell me that they cannot claim additional funding if they hold a reserve, yet they are told to hold a reserve for staff pay, cash flow and so on. For example, covid-related staff absence is not covered by insurance and is proving costly for schools in my constituency. Added to that, teachers are expected—and, rightly, willing—to deliver remote learning, yet I am aware of staff who still do not have adequate IT equipment. Can the Minister survey schools to identify how significant those problems are?
There is also the expectation on covid testing. Schools have been told to set up testing capacity for pupils and staff, but I am aware of a concern among schools and parents about whether this is an appropriate additional expectation on school staff. I am also aware of schools that feel they cannot accept pupils face to face unless parents consent to these covid tests. Could the Minister clarify what schools are expected to do and whether children can be barred from school-based learning if parents are concerned about the testing regime? We are in danger of another expectation on schools that serves to damage the relationship with parents.
Finally, I turn to recognition. As I said at the outset, if nothing else, I want to put on record my appreciation of and respect for schools and all school staff. If there was any particular time to appreciate the investment that our school staff make in our children, it must be now. I believe there needs to be a wider debate about the attitude to teachers as a profession generally. We must regain the confidence of schools that decision makers understand the grassroots of education. To do this, we must up our game in regard to consultation and trust in the workforce. That will deliver the best model for all our children. I honestly believe that there is a need for further respect and trust, which I do not believe for a minute is anything but the Department’s intention.
Looking forward positively, there are schools that have excelled at delivering a comprehensive teaching programme directly into people’s homes. Will the Department for Education look at permitting schools with this proven track record of quality remote learning to offer this to children who, for various reasons, do not access mainstream education in normal times? We all know that before the pandemic, there were many parents and many children who, for whatever reason, could not fit in or were not attending mainstream education. There are huge numbers of children in my constituency who are home-schooled. Even after the first lockdown, I began the conversation with the Department about whether, where that is the case and where it is unavoidable, schools that are good at remote learning could enrol these children in school and involve them in its teaching environment.
To conclude, I hope that the Minister can instruct his Department and senior figures in Government to look for ways to improve communication, balance resource and advice with the expectation we rightly have for our schools, and find ways of praising the fantastic work of teachers wherever and however possible. They have been incredible and continue to do what they do in an extraordinary environment. Having had my children home for most of last year, I, for one, truly appreciate the work of our teachers.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
May I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on securing this very important Adjournment debate? I am delighted to be able to take part in it and I thank him very much indeed. He and I have much in common: we are both Members of Parliament from the south-west, we both have very rural and coastal constituencies, and we both have fishing and farming communities. However, I like to think that West Dorset maybe leads the way a little bit in education. Of course, I was schooled in Sherborne —it was also the town of the school of Alan Turing, who solved the Enigma code during the second world war.
This pandemic has touched every aspect of society, and, as hon. Members will know, we have discussed and debated those extensively. Despite the fact that some have been urging schools to close, not least some unions, may I commend the Government and the Minister, particularly, for wanting to keep them open and doing all he can to do so? But the reality is that schools, headteachers and their teams are making valiant efforts to continue educating our children—their pupils—no matter what circumstances they face. While school is closed for many children in West Dorset, I have at least one school with 60% of its children who are children of critical workers, or who are those in particular need. I have been in regular contact with the headteachers in my constituency, and I have been consistently in awe of the way that they continue to handle the most difficult of situations.
Covid testing in schools has been a great logistical challenge, but none the less, our schools, particularly those in West Dorset, have been willing to put all those measures in place to carry on. Teachers across the nation, I know, have gone above and beyond to support our young people through the pandemic, which has been no mean feat. West Dorset schools have made the transition to online learning extraordinarily quickly, thereby ensuring that students do not fall behind. They have kept their doors open for the children of critical workers, as I said, and they have built covid-secure infrastructure entirely from scratch in many cases.
The Government have kept schools open for as long as possible to reduce the disruption to education, and I know that the decision to close them was not taken lightly. Despite the short notice for many of these decisions, teachers in my constituency have been enormously responsive to these changing circumstances. Staff classed as clinically vulnerable or shielding have been unable to go to work, sometimes for their own safety, while frequent and unfortunately necessary isolations have contributed to some staffing arrangements being under pressure. Those staff able to come in have indeed put in extraordinarily long hours, and I commend them all for that. This is despite some of the difficulties they face and some undermining their efforts, writing letters urging teachers and staff to refuse to come to work. We are privileged to have such a committed teaching profession.
I have been personally very moved by the many emails and replies from teachers, sharing with me what they have done, as I am sure has been the case for my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives—the weekends they have given up to prepare for new guidance, new processes and new arrangements. I would particularly like to mention special needs schools, which I know have had a particularly tough time.
I want to make particular mention of the schools that I know have totally gone above and beyond in delivering education to our children in West Dorset: the Woodroffe school in Lyme Regis, the Gryphon School in Sherborne, Mountjoy School in Beaminster, St Mary’s in Bridport, and Trent Young’s Church of England Primary School and St Osmund’s Middle School in Dorchester. There are many, many more in West Dorset that I would like to commend. Unfortunately, I do not have the time this evening to do that, but their work in education—for logistics, for care, for the health and support of their pupils—has been absolutely excellent.
Going forward, I would like to ask the Minister to consider, hopefully in wrapping up, that the vaccination of our teachers be put higher on to the agenda. I know how strongly he and many of his colleagues in the Department feel, but I know too that the teachers who have been in touch with me over the previous weeks would very much value it if he took that forward.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on securing this debate, and both he and my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) on their introductory speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives is right to pay tribute to the extraordinary way in which teachers, support staff and headteachers in the 50-plus schools in his constituency and elsewhere around the country have responded to the demands placed on them by the covid pandemic and by the Government’s response to tackling it.
From introducing covid security measures in our schools over the summer holidays, maintaining and enforcing the new rules in schools during the summer term, increased hygiene—I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend’s commitment on the personal hygiene front —increased hand washing, one-way systems and staggered breaks and lunch times for all pupils, while at the same time helping their pupils to catch up from the lockdown from March to July, to teaching the curriculum and continuing the work to prepare and improve the curriculum for online teaching, these have been demanding times for the profession. With high attendance rates and more than 99% of schools open throughout the autumn term, we should all have enormous admiration for the achievements of schools and their staff. Indeed, I very well remember visiting some of the schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency just a few short years ago and meeting some of the very same teachers and support staff he referred to in his speech.
However, the situation has now changed again. It is vital that we take action, given the very high transmission rates, so since 5 January we have asked schools to limit attendance during the lockdown, because the Government are taking every possible measure to reduce overall social contacts, bringing down cases in the community and protecting the NHS. This will undoubtedly have a big impact on children and schools once again. We will continue to review the restrictions on schools and ensure that children get back to face-to-face education as soon as possible, which I know is the preference of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. I suspect that deep down it is also the preference of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, despite all the support and the enjoyment he has with his children being at home.
In the meantime, we are doing everything we can to ensure that children continue to learn and make progress. Schools have always been required to assess and manage risk. Before the end of the summer term, we published clear guidance for the autumn so that they could put in place proportionate control measures in response to their risk assessments, while still providing their pupils with a high-quality education. The 11 control measures run from enhanced cleaning and ventilating occupied spaces to managing confirmed cases of the virus. This is a fast-moving situation, and as the pandemic has evolved, guidance for schools has been needed on a range of issues. I am aware of feedback on guidance, and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives that we have made changes to improve our approach in response, making clear any changes at the start of documents, so that school staff can quickly see updates, without having to re-read the whole document.
During the current period of national restrictions we have asked schools to allow only vulnerable children and young people, and the children of critical workers to attend. The guidance is clear that families where at least one parent’s work is critical can send their child to school, if required. If parents and carers who are critical workers can keep their children at home, they should do so. We know that every school will have a different number of children of critical workers who need to attend, and it is important that on-site provision is provided for these pupils, and schools should not limit attendance of these groups. That is because we are reducing overall social contact across areas and the country, rather than individually by each institution. The Department publishes weekly national level data on pupil attendance, and the data for 11 January shows that attendance in state primary schools in England was at 20% and attendance in state secondaries was at 4%, although this will of course vary on a school-by-school basis, as my hon. Friend has pointed out.
On 15 December, we announced the roll-out of rapid result asymptomatic testing in secondary schools for the workforce and for pupils, and I am pleased to hear that schools in St Ives are already benefiting from that. This month, we are also rolling out that programme to primary school staff. Primary schools should expect to receive a delivery of home testing kits from today. Schools can access workforce funding and military support to help them implement the programme, as well as engage volunteers through one of the national volunteering networks. Where schools are unable to identify enough staff or volunteers, they can call our helpline for additional support, which is provided on a case-by-case basis. Testing those without symptoms is vital in reducing the spread of covid-19, and these lateral flow tests will be able to indicate in just half an hour whether somebody has the virus. Participation in the programme requires the consent of the person being tested or their parents, if they are under 16. Pupils who are not taking part in testing will still be able to attend school as normal, where they are eligible to attend, unless of course they develop symptoms or need to self-isolate after being in close contact with somebody who has tested positive. All those steps help make schools as safe as possible and will help limit the amount of time that pupils miss from the classroom in the future.
As my hon. Friend will know, the Government have a catch-up package worth £1 billion, including a catch-up premium, worth a total of £650 million, to support schools to make up for the impact of time outside the classroom. This academic year the forecast catch-up premium for Cornwall will be £5.8 million. Alongside that, we have a new £350 million national tutoring programme for disadvantaged pupils, which will increase access to high-quality tuition for the most disadvantaged young people, helping to accelerate their academic progress and tackling the attainment gap.
It is crucial that all children continue to learn during the lockdown, so we have updated the remote education guidance for schools to clarify and strengthen expectations, drawing on our evolving understanding of best practice in remote education. The Government are spending £400 million on remote education to help schools and colleges meet those expectations. That includes three quarters of a million laptops and tablets that have already been delivered to schools and local authorities since the start of the pandemic. A comprehensive package of support is available and the Department has also made £4.84 million available for the Oak National Academy, both for the summer term of the academic year 2019-20 and for the 2020-21 academic year, to provide video lessons in a broad range of subjects for reception to year 11, and there have been 32 million views of those very high-quality lessons from the Oak National Academy.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives raised the issue of funding, as he so often does on behalf of his constituents and schools. School budgets are rising by £2.6 billion in 2020-21, £4.8 billion in 2021-22 and £7.1 billion in 2022-23, compared with 2019-20. On average, schools are attracting 4.2% more per pupil in this financial year, compared with 2019-20, and will attract 3.3% more per pupil in 2021-22. This increase in funding will help schools with costs associated with the covid outbreak.
We have also provided additional funding to schools on top of existing budgets to cover unavoidable costs incurred between March and July 2020 due to the covid outbreak that could not be met from their budgets. Schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency have received £94,238 so far through the first claims window of the covid exceptional costs fund, which supported schools with the most significant costs they faced between March and July. Schools nationally have received payments of more than £100 million for all claims within the published scope of the fund, and we are currently processing claims from the second window, which ran in December. We have also promised a further £78 million to support schools with the costs of rolling out testing this term.
We know that children and young people may be experiencing a wide variety of emotions in response to the coronavirus outbreak, such as anxiety, stress or low mood, and the return to remote learning for most will limit their social interaction with their peers. Some pupils may need support from their school to readjust— either to return to learning at home or to being in school without some of their friends. Our £8 million wellbeing-for-education-return training programme is supporting staff in schools and colleges to respond to the additional pressures that schools may be feeling as a direct result of the pandemic. My hon. Friends will be delighted to know that there are similar schemes to help teachers’ wellbeing during this very pressured time.
Ultimately, it is our ambition to ensure that all pupils have the chance to make up for education lost during the pandemic, so that they can reach their potential in the long term. We are doing everything in our power so that schools can make this happen. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said about prioritising vaccines for teachers. The Government are considering that, along with other critical workers in the second phase of the roll-out of the pandemic.
School leaders, teachers and support staff have done truly tremendous work since the start of the pandemic to maintain high-quality education for all their pupils. I thank them once again for their exceptional efforts.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
(3 years, 10 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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (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 |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Sarah Olney |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) | Sarah Olney |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Sarah Olney |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Sarah Olney |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) | Ben Everitt |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (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 |
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) | Patrick Grady |
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Alan Campbell (Ogmore) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) | Sarah Olney |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Sarah Olney |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anthony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Sarah Olney |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Howell (Henley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Sarah Olney |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Sarah Olney |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Sarah Olney |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Sarah Olney |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Rachel Hopkins |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Petitions
Accessibility of leisure attractions
Banning of unpaid work trials
Written Statements
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Coronavirus-related Assistance: Industrial Development Act 1982
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I am tabling this statement for the benefit of hon. Members to bring to their attention spend under the Industrial Development Act 1982. In addition to the obligation to report annually on spend under the Industrial Development Act, the Coronavirus Act 2020 created a new quarterly reporting requirement for spend which has been designated as addressing the effects of coronavirus. This statement fulfils that purpose. In the period from 1 April to 30 June 20202, the following expenditures were incurred: Actual expenditure of assistance provided by Her Majesty’s Government from 1 April 2020 to 30 June 2020 £ 47,637,000 All expenditure of assistance provided by Her Majesty’s Government from 25 March 2020 £ 47,637,000 Actual expenditure of assistance provided by: Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy £ 47,600,000 Competition Appeal Tribunal £ 37,000 Contingent liability under the Coronavirus Act 2020 Contingent liability of assistance provided by the Secretary of State from 1 April 2020 to 3o June 2020 £ 30,383,783,770 All contingent liability of assistance provided by the Secretary of State from 25 March 2020 £ 30,456,183,770
The statement also includes a report of the movement in contingent liability during the quarter. Hon. Members will wish to note that measures such as local authority grants, the coronavirus job retention scheme and self-employed income support scheme, and tax measures such as the suspension of business rates are not provided under the Industrial Development Act 1982 and hence are not included below.
This report covers the second quarter of 2020, from 1 April to 30 June 2020, in accordance with the Coronavirus Act. The Q1 written ministerial statement was published on 9 July 2020.
Under the Coronavirus Act 2020, there is a requirement to lay before Parliament details of the amount of assistance designated as coronavirus related provided in each relevant quarter.
[HCWS715]
Awarding Qualifications in 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
On Friday 15 January, Ofqual and the Department for Education published a joint consultation outlining detailed proposals for alternative arrangements for awarding general, vocational and technical qualifications in summer 2021.
This consultation, outlined in “Consultation on how GCSE, AS and A level grades should be awarded in summer 2021” and ‘Consultation on alternative arrangements for the award of VTQs and other general qualifications in 2021”,will be open for two weeks ending on 29 January. Responses can be completed using the online response forms on www.gov.uk for GCSE, AS and A-levels and for vocational and technical qualifications.
In his statement to the House on 6 January, the Secretary of State confirmed proposals that students taking GCSE, AS and A-levels this summer should be awarded grades based on an assessment by their teachers. Teachers’ judgement will be based on a range of evidence; Ofqual and the Department will consult on the evidence needed to inform teachers’ assessments of their students’ grades, including providing externally set papers to support their assessments. Teachers will be provided with training and guidance to support them.
We recognise that students who are not studying within a school or college, for example because they are home educated, must be able to be issued with a grade. We are seeking views on the proposals that would enable them to do so.
The consultation also proposes both that exam boards should provide information for schools and colleges to inform their own quality assurance, and that the exam boards themselves should undertake checks of schools’ and colleges’ processes and the evidence for the grades submitted. We propose that all students will have a route to appeal their grades.
The approach set out in the consultation for vocational and technical qualifications which are taken instead of or alongside GCSEs, AS and A-levels is consistent with the approach for these qualifications. For other general qualifications, such as Core Maths, Pre-U and the International Baccalaureate, the consultation also proposes the awarding approach should be similar to GCSEs, AS and A-levels.
The consultation proposes that those vocational and technical qualifications with practical exams and assessments which are required to demonstrate occupational competence for employment and apprenticeships should continue to take place where they can be delivered in line with public health guidelines, including remotely.
“On-demand” assessments of shorter, focused qualifications such as Functional Skills that can be delivered in line with public health guidelines, including remotely, should be permitted to continue to proceed.
The consultation seeks the views of students, parents and carers, teachers, school and college leaders before decisions are made on final arrangements. We will also take into account the views of further and higher education and employers, to ensure that young people can move onto the next stage of their lives.
[HCWS714]
Children's Social Care: Independent Review
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
This Government are committed to levelling up across the country. In order to do this, it is absolutely vital that we start with children and families—particularly the most vulnerable—so that we can realise the benefits of establishing firm and loving foundations, both to individuals and to society for generations to come.
Further to my written ministerial statement of 12 February 2020, I am making this statement to launch the independent review of children’s social care, which was committed to in the Government’s manifesto. I am pleased to inform hon. and right hon. Members that the review will be carried out by Josh MacAlister, who is the founder and chief executive of the children’s social work charity Frontline. Josh brings both an understanding of the challenges facing the system that supports vulnerable children and families and experience of developing and implementing innovative solutions.
The review will start from children’s experiences and look at the whole system of support, safeguarding, protection and care and the children’s journey into and out of that system, including relevant aspects of preventive service that are provided to children and families as part of early help. It will engage with children, young people, adults and families with direct experience of children’s social care, in order to ensure those individuals’ views and lived experience are fully embedded in the review’s work. The review will aim to improve children and young people’s lives and outcomes and address major challenges facing the system.
I am placing copies of the terms of reference in the Libraries of the House, and it is also available on www.gov.uk alongside other documents that have accompanied the launch of the review.
[HCWS717]
British Virgin Islands: Commission of Inquiry
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
The UK is extremely concerned about the state of good governance in the British Virgin Islands (BVI).
A consistent and deeply troubling array of concerns have been put to the Governor by local institutions and the community. The Governor has set out these concerns to me. They include, but are not limited to:
Allegations of political interference and coercion in relation to appointments in the public service and statutory boards, the criminal justice system and individual criminal cases;
Claims that people in public service, media and community leaders have been intimidated to such a degree that they describe living in a climate of fear;
Allegations that funds set aside for struggling families during the pandemic may have been reallocated to political allies;
Concerns around spending on Government contracts without any proper procurement process;
Misuse of taxpayers’ money on infrastructure and transport projects.
Against this backdrop, we are also concerned about the potential vulnerability of the islands to serious organised crime. The scale of this was made clear in November 2020, with the seizure of more than two tonnes of cocaine, worth just under £190 million.
Successive attempts have been made to address these concerns through local institutions, many of which have done commendable work to bring them to light. However, the scope and seriousness of the concerns are now beyond local capacity to address.
The UK Government are responsible for ensuring the security and good governance of BVI. We have a constitutional and moral duty to protect the interests of the people of BVI. We cannot ignore such serious allegations.
With this in mind, on 18 January, the Governor of BVI, supported by the UK Government, announced an independent Commission of Inquiry.
The Commission will inquire into whether there is information to substantiate claims that corruption, abuse of position and serious impropriety has taken place in public office in recent years, and it will make recommendations. The Commission will be led by the right honourable Sir Gary Hickinbottom, who will have the powers of a high court judge within the territory with respect to gathering evidence. The BVI Commission of Inquiry Ordinance makes provisions for the scope of the inquiry to be adjusted or extended should it prove necessary.
The Government expect the Commissioner to deliver his report to the Governor within six months. At this point, we hope that the UK and BVI will be able to consider the recommendations together in a constructive manner that best serves the people of BVI.
This Government’s aim is to build stronger governance for the people of BVI and uphold our commitment to our overseas territories and their people.
[HCWS716]
Community Pharmacy and Care Home Vaccinations
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Nadhim Zahawi)
I am tabling this statement for the benefit of hon. and right hon. Members to bring to their attention two contingent liabilities: one relating to clinical negligence liabilities incurred by pharmacy-led covid-19 vaccination sites between 1 January and 30 June 2021, and one relating to a targeted and time-limited state-backed indemnity to care homes, registered or intending to register as “Designated Settings”, which are unable to obtain sufficient insurance cover.
On the first, Members will be aware that we have initiated the covid-19 vaccination programme to deliver the vaccine across England. As this programme continues to roll out, we are working with NHS England and NHS Improvement (NHSE/I) to stand up sites in every community.
NHSE/I intends to administer the covid-19 vaccine through trusts, general practice and community pharmacy-led settings to ensure adequate vaccination centre coverage across England. Healthcare professionals need clinical negligence indemnity for delivering covid-19 vaccines. This is provided through the existing state schemes in England for NHS trusts and GP practices.
However, community pharmacies are not covered by state indemnity and are obliged to obtain their own commercial insurance. Following engagement with community pharmacy representatives, our assessment was that the insurance market would not be able to comprehensively provide cover for this risk at such short notice, and we agreed the state indemnity.
Without adequate indemnity cover, pharmacies would be unable to commit to the programme. Their participation is crucial as they have been selected to fill geographical gaps in cover or where NHS capacity is such that they are unable to participate. Therefore, DHSC has provided a time-limited clinical negligence indemnity to community pharmacies to 30 June 2021, to enable them to engage at pace with this programme. The provision of such an indemnity enables pharmacy contractors to start to run services, while the Department and NHS England and NHS Improvement continue to work with the community pharmacy sector on a longer-term approach to insuring community pharmacy for covid-19 vaccinations. We had originally intended to time-limit this to the end of March but, with the decision to extend the period between vaccine doses, have decided to run the indemnity until the end of June.
All claims of clinical negligence will be managed through the provider of the current state-backed schemes—NHS Resolution—in line with the existing schemes.
The need for the indemnity was extremely urgent as pharmacy-led centres could not begin to vaccinate patients until this was in place and, indeed, vaccinations have begun at six centres as of 14 January 2021. Delaying would have postponed the roll-out of this vital aspect of the vaccination programme, restricting access to the vaccine in some areas of the county. We concluded that such a delay was not acceptable, and I hope it is clear why this was indeed a case of special urgency. Therefore, the normal 14 sitting days for consideration has on this occasion not been possible.
I would also like to update the House on the DHSC’s scheme to provide a targeted and time-limited state-backed indemnity to care homes, registered or intending to register as “Designated Settings”, which are unable to obtain sufficient insurance cover.
The Government are committed to ensuring the best care possible for people with covid-19. For people admitted to hospital who need social care support, we have worked closely with local authorities and the Care Quality Commission to register certain adult social care homes as designated settings. I welcome the response of the care sector to the demand for such care. It is our priority to ensure that people are discharged safely from hospital to the most appropriate setting, and that they receive the care and support they need.
I acknowledge the role of the insurance industry in continuing to provide cover, where possible, for this activity. However, we know that obtaining sufficient insurance to accept covid-19 positive patients and sign up to become a designated setting has been a barrier for some care home providers wishing to join the scheme. The designated setting scheme is for people who are medically fit for discharge from hospital (i.e., they do not require to be in an acute NHS bed) but whose ongoing care and support needs are such that they require full-time residential or nursing care. A large proportion of these people will already have been living in a care home.
The scheme forms part of wider policy on hospital discharge set out in “Hospital discharge service: policy and operating model”—August 2020—which enshrines a principle of “home first”, whereby at least 95% of discharges from hospital should be to a person’s own (private) home.
This is limiting the ability of a small number of local authorities to operationalise designated settings capacity, and in other areas is limiting the expansion of such capacity in response to rising demand.
Given the severity and immediacy of the pressures facing the NHS, we want to take all possible steps to remove obstacles to sufficient local designated settings provision. This includes ensuring that where the creation of designated settings has created barriers to insurance, the Government will introduce a targeted and time-limited indemnity offer to fill gaps in commercial cover.
The indemnity will cover clinical negligence, employer’s and public liability where a care provider seeking to become a designated setting is unable to secure sufficient commercial insurance, or where an existing provider has been operating without sufficient cover. Employer’s and public liability will be covered by a new indemnity scheme; clinical negligence will be covered by the clinical negligence scheme for trusts, an existing state scheme. The indemnity arrangements will be supervised by DHSC and administered by NHS Resolution. The indemnity will cover designated settings until the end of March 2021, with a review point in mid-February.
I regret that in this circumstance, due to the need to take this action urgently to support timely discharge from the NHS at this stage of the pandemic, the normal 14 sitting days for consideration has not been possible. A departmental minute has been laid in the House of Commons providing more detail on this contingent liability.
[HCWS718]
Planning and Heritage: Historic Statues, Plaques, Memorials and Monuments
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
Protecting our nation’s heritage
I would like to update the House about the role of the planning system in relation to the protection of historic statues, plaques, memorials and monuments. I am concerned that, over the last few months, some such heritage assets may have been removed without proper debate, consultation with the public and due process.
Indeed, the removal of a statue in Bristol was an act of criminal damage. We should never tolerate criminal acts and mob rule.
This Government are committed to ensuring our nation’s heritage is appropriately protected. It is important that all decisions on removing historic statues, plaques (which are part of a building and whose alteration or removal materially affects the external appearance of the building), memorials and monuments—even for a temporary period—are taken in accordance with the law and following the correct process. Decisions to remove any such heritage assets owned by a local authority should be taken in accordance with its constitution, following consultation with the local community and interested parties, and the rationale for a decision to remove should be transparent.
The planning system plays a crucial role in conserving and enhancing our heritage. Under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, listed building consent from the local planning authority is required for the removal or alteration of a statue, plaque, memorial or monument which is designated as a listed building, or which forms part of a listed building, where it affects the special historic or architectural character of the listed building.
Paragraph 193 of the national planning policy framework already states that great weight should be given to the conservation of a designated heritage asset. Paragraph 195 also requires that where development will lead to substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss.
I would also like to remind local planning authorities of the current requirements to notify Historic England and the national amenity societies of applications involving the demolition of a listed building. In those cases where local planning authorities are minded to grant consent for the removal of a listed statue, plaque, memorial or monument despite an extant objection from Historic England or one of the national amenity societies, they are required to notify the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who will then consider whether to call in the application or not. Where an extant objection is in relation to a listed building consent application made by Historic England or a local authority itself, the local planning authority must refer it to the Secretary of State for determination.
At present, these notification requirements do not apply in relation to grade II listed buildings where the removal of a statue, plaque, memorial or monument constitutes an alteration to a listed building rather than demolition. I intend to exercise my powers to direct local planning authorities that these types of application are subject to the same notification requirements as for applications involving the demolition of a listed building.
It is also important that the removal of historic statues, plaques, memorials and monuments which are not listed are subject to proper process. These heritage assets can often be well known local landmarks, but unless they meet certain size thresholds, their removal will not be currently classified as development for planning purposes and so is not subject to planning control.
I am today therefore setting out my intention to make the removal of any historic unlisted statue, plaque, memorial or monument subject to an explicit requirement to obtain planning permission. I also intend to require local planning authorities to adhere to similar notification requirements as for listed building consent applications involving listed statues, plaques, memorials and monuments. This will require directions and changes to secondary legislation including the permitted development right for the demolition of buildings.
In considering any applications to remove a historic statue, plaque, memorial or monument (whether a listed building or not), local planning authorities should have regard to the Government’s clear policy on heritage (summarised as “retain and explain”) as set out by the Digital Infrastructure Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman)—to Parliament on 25 September 2020. This statement now forms part of national planning policy and should be applied accordingly.
Historic statues, plaques, memorials and monuments should not be removed before a decision on the application is made.
I would also draw local planning authorities’ attention to the advice Historic England has published to support decision making involving heritage whose story or meaning has become challenged (“Checklist to help local authorities to deal with contested heritage listed building decisions”). As they note, “Our stance on historic statues and sites which have become contested is to retain and explain them; to provide thoughtful, long-lasting and powerful reinterpretation that responds to their contested history and tells the full story.”
The new legislation and directions referred to in this statement will come into effect in the spring.
I would like to make clear that, as the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, I have wide discretion to “call in” planning applications or recover appeals for my own determination, not least because of the controversy attached to such decisions. I will not hesitate to use those powers in relation to applications and appeals involving historic statues, plaques, memorials or monuments where I consider such action is necessary to reflect the Government’s planning policies as set out above.
In conclusion, this Government believe it is always right to examine Britain’s history, but the knee-jerk removal of statues does harm rather than good. Our aim should be to use heritage to educate people about all aspects of Britain’s past rather than censoring our shared British history.
[HCWS713]
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber; others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ replies are also brief.
International Soft Power Strategy: Role of BBC
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the role of the BBC in their international soft power strategy.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the BBC plays an important role in promoting our values globally through its independent and impartial broadcasting. It is a central part of British soft power and influence. The role of soft power is being considered as part of the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy. This will be informed by the conclusions of the cross-government work already undertaken on our strategic approach to this area.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to co-ordinate their domestic approach to the BBC with their international soft power strategy? Does the Minister not consider that the repeated criticism of the BBC by Ministers, including the Prime Minister, and the right-wing press weakens the standing of the BBC and its reputation abroad?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I already said in my original Answer, we recognise as a Government the important role the BBC plays and continue to support its work around the world. Since 2016, the Government have invested heavily in the BBC, with over £370 million of funding. We continue to recognise the important role it plays on the world stage.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the BBC is the world’s most trusted broadcaster and its work in promoting values such as democracy, freedom and the rule of law is crucial when Chinese and Russian state-funded propaganda channels, with no commitment to accuracy or impartiality, are building large audiences in Europe, across Africa and Asia, and beyond. Will the Government commit to maintaining the funding they provided to introduce new and enhanced services—including the Russian service—after it runs out in September? Any cuts could put this work at risk, undermining the promotion of our values abroad.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord on the important role that the BBC plays. Funding is of course being considered alongside other FCDO spending priorities, as part of the 2020 spending review, but I would add that I also agree with him on the importance of new language services. During the previous period that I mentioned, between 2016 and 2020, the BBC has already launched 12 new language services supported by the Government.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con) [V]
My Lords, our International Relations and Defence Committee report, published last week, welcomes BBC World Service provision of impartial information in three languages in Afghanistan. Does my noble friend agree that this work is important, because it contributes to fostering a more open society in which women can be empowered, and that the Government should maintain their financial support?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend and, through her role as chair, congratulate the committee on its important report. The FCDO is supportive of the BBC’s delivery of impartial and trusted news to Afghanistan. I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Afghanistan this morning on the importance of the role of women, in particular when it comes to peacebuilding. We believe that the BBC, particularly its BBC Pashto platform, is an important part of doing just that.
Baroness D'Souza (CB) [V]
My Lords, despite the proliferation of online news services, millions across the world turn towards the BBC World Service for accuracy and balance. Are Her Majesty’s Government planning to severely limit this most powerful of all soft power instruments, or will the current level of funding be guaranteed beyond September 2021?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have already partially answered the question on funding. However, let me reassure the noble Baroness that we remain committed to the BBC, as has been demonstrated by our support for the 12 new language services over the period from 2016 to 2020.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Government’s welcome and important funding of the World Service beyond the licence fee has more than achieved its objectives with a greater number of language services, double-digit audience growth and ever-higher trust ratings. Does the Minister accept that this unique world-leading asset for the UK is the right vehicle for further and larger support to achieve our vital national interest of combating disinformation and the use by hostile actors of dishonesty to undermine the stability of democracies?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I fully recognise what the noble Lord has said about the important role that the BBC World Service plays, for the very reasons that he says.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the words of Richard Sharp, the newly appointed chair of the BBC, that it is
“part of the fabric of all our national identities”.
Does the noble Lord the Minister agree? And does he agree that a globally strong and domestically supported BBC is massively in the national interest? I am afraid I have to press the Minister. Will the Government commit to sustaining their investment in the BBC World Service which has reaped such great rewards?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness in her opening remarks. On the issue of finance, we are currently reviewing FCDO priorities. She may press me, and she is entitled to, but I cannot give a specific answer at this time.
Baroness Fall (Con) [V]
Now that we have cut our ties with the EU, we need to be more, not less, focused on how we maximise our influence around the world. We have many assets at our disposal: a strong economy, our aid budget, our military, our membership of many influential bodies and we are chairing the G7 and COP 26 this year. However, our language and how we deploy it through the likes of the BBC World Service and BBC World News remains one of our greatest assets, as others have already iterated in this debate. I ask the Minister to reassure us that, as we look to review the licence fee, we do not cut funds to these most valuable assets—especially as we are competing with state media outlets from the likes of China and Russia.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I have listened very carefully to my noble friend and I agree with her. Like many noble Lords, indeed all noble Lords, I welcome the role the BBC continues to play, and the Government are very supportive. I take specific note of the concerns raised on the issue of funding. I am sure the input from today’s questions will feature in our thinking as we move forward on the future funding of the BBC World Service.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we live in times of fake news. “Fake news” is an allegation made by the President of the United States against the media in America. Will this Government pledge and make public their support of the BBC as a trustworthy news source?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I believe I have already done that several times today, and I will continue to do so.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister update the House on action taken by the Government to protest about and bring an end to the systematic persecution by Iranian authorities of the BBC’s Persian service journalists and their families, both in the UK and in Iran?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a very important point. I reassure her that we consistently raise the important role of journalists within Iran with the Iranian authorities. Let me also reassure her that, as she will know, media freedom and protecting journalists around the world is a key Government priority.
Baroness Hooper (Con) [V]
My Lords, in underlining everything that has been said about the importance and value of the BBC’s foreign language services, may I turn to the need to increase trade with Latin American countries? Are there any plans to build on the success of the BBC World Service’s Spanish-language Latin American service BBC Mundo? For our home consumption, will the Minister press the BBC to increase positive coverage of events in the region? I must confess that I often have to switch to Al Jazeera to get the wider picture.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I take note of what my noble friend has said. In looking towards what is now global Britain and our support, I am sure that the BBC and its valuable service will be part of our thinking as we strengthen our approach to trade and other areas around the world.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister envisage that the soft power strategy that was anticipated will ever be produced, or has it been subsumed into the integrated security and defence review? Where will the BBC World Service fit into that?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
As I have already said, the integrated review is a vital part of that, and all these component elements will be in the announcement of the findings of the integrated review. The BBC World Service provides an important source of communication and information, as we have heard from noble Lords, and it will continue to be part of our thinking. The issue of soft power around the world is a key part of what we do. Whether we look at the BBC, some of our scholarships or global Britain’s place in the world through the Commonwealth, all of these are part and parcel of our soft power strategy and part of what will feature in the announcement of the integrated review.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked. We now move to the second Oral Question.
Airports National Policy Statement
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the report by the Climate Change Committee Sixth Carbon Budget: The UK’s path to Net Zero, published on 9 December 2020, what plans they have to review the Airports National Policy Statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, on 16 December 2020, the Supreme Court overturned the earlier Court of Appeal decision and declared:
“The airports national policy statement is lawful”.
The Government are carefully considering the court’s judgment. We take seriously our commitments on the environment and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and we will consult on an aviation decarbonisation strategy in due course.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
I draw attention to my entries in the register. I thank my noble friend for her not entirely unexpected answer. However, will she agree with me that, especially in this year of the UK hosting the COP 26, our aviation expansion policy should be re-examined? Does she agree with the sixth carbon budget that any future expansion plans in London should be balanced by reductions in capacity elsewhere in the UK, which will not be good news for a levelling-up agenda, never mind our commitment to net zero by 2050?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I agree with my noble friend that this year is very important in terms of ensuring that we capitalise on our role as president of COP 26 and establish the sixth carbon budget in law, which will be done by June 2021. The role of international aviation within that is being very carefully considered by my department.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, of all the ways of restricting carbon dioxide emissions from air travel, is not restricting the capacity of airports the silliest? Its main consequence would be that more planes would be stacked up above busy airports, using more fuel, and all other flights to those destinations would have to carry more fuel just in case they were stacked up too.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I agree with my noble friend that there are many ways that we can tackle carbon emissions. He mentions stacking. That is why we are taking forward the airspace modernisation plan, which will have capacity benefits for airports, reduce costs for airlines and reduce delays for passengers—because stacking will become a thing of the past.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether the Government accept the climate change committee’s recommendation that international aviation emissions should be formally included in the UK climate targets when setting the sixth carbon budget? These are real emissions and account for 7% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions; by 2018, they had increased by 88% above 1990 levels.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As the noble Lord will know, the climate change committee published its report on 9 December, which is not that long ago, and Christmas was in the intervening period. We are looking very carefully at the recommendations. International aviation emissions is a very knotty problem which can lead to unintended consequences if countries act unilaterally. We really need to see international action, and the UK is at the forefront.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister recall that, when the Prime Minister made his extremely welcome announcement on 11 February that the Government were proceeding with HS2, he said:
“Passengers arriving at Birmingham Airport will be able to get to central London by train in 38 minutes, which compares favourably with the time it takes to get from Heathrow by taxi”?—(Official Report, Commons, 11/2/20; col. 712.)
In view of that, can the Minister give a commitment that her department will look very carefully at HS2’s potential for shifting traffic from domestic flights to trains, as that would make a huge difference to the carbon emissions target?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right that HS2 will provide huge benefits and may well lead to some people choosing to make a domestic train journey rather than taking a domestic flight. He is also right that it connects Birmingham Airport to north-west London in particular; I am sure the residents there will appreciate that.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
Within the transport industries there is a growing consensus that travel patterns will change post-pandemic, with greater emphasis on leisure travel. Some 60% of Heathrow’s customers were business passengers, but we all use Zoom now. Heathrow expansion was already a white elephant before the pandemic. Does the Minister accept that it must now be reassessed, applying modern environmental standards?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Any expansion by Heathrow would already be assessed according to modern environmental standards because, of course, the ANPS is future-proof: London Heathrow must show that its plans are compatible with updated carbon targets and international obligations before it can obtain a DCO for the project.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
My Lords, regarding the path to net zero, it is likely that a significant number of the roughly 223,000 jobs in the aviation sector may be lost. What is the Government’s strategy to replace them with sustainable jobs in an environmentally sustainable aviation sector? Now that the Government are providing further support—paid, of course, by the taxpayer—why are they failing to attach conditions, including banning the “fire and rehire” tactics used by aviation companies to push through wage cuts for already low-paid workers?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am less pessimistic than the noble Baroness about the future of the aviation sector. The Government are working very closely with it both as it recovers from the immediate effect of the pandemic and on the medium-term strategy for regional connectivity, decarbonisation—as noted in earlier questions—and many of the other issues that are key to getting people back in the skies. On the noble Baroness’s comment about hiring-and-firing practices within some airlines, that is a matter for them and their human resources policy.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, as the urgent doom and gloom predictions of 20 years ago have not materialised, and as attempts to alter climate change are hugely expensive, how far have the Government got with the essential cost-benefit analysis?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, when we look at carbon emissions, we must do so in the round: air-quality and noise considerations also need to be taken into account. All of these are important. I accept that there are investments to be made, but I believe that, in the round, whether it be on carbon, air quality or noise, these investments are worth while.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in light of the urgent need to reinvigorate the British economy post-Covid with ambitious and large-scale infrastructure projects that will require plentiful and flexible travel opportunities, and of the previously mentioned devastating impact of lockdown measures on aviation, tourism and jobs in that sector, will the noble Baroness assure us that net zero targets will not be used as a barrier to airport expansion and rejuvenation? Will the Government discourage the eco green version of unnecessary travel rules under the guise of hectoring us to fly less, and instead encourage us to fly more, when safe to do so, whether for pleasure, holidays, business or even to attend global summits to discuss carbon reduction?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Of course, the Government have a wide range of transport infrastructure projects that we are taking forward under the guise of building back better. The noble Baroness is right, in that there is always a balance: in the future, when aircraft emit less, it may be absolutely acceptable to take as many flights as one likes. Sometimes, we are told we should not fly, but, of course, that is just because of the carbon. Actually, flying is a very good, quick and efficient way of getting from A to B.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the airports NPS proceeds on the stated basis that:
“Aviation demand is likely to increase significantly between now and 2050”,
and that
“Any increase in carbon emissions alone is not a reason to refuse development consent”.
However, the sixth carbon budget report says quite specifically that there can be no airport expansion unless emissions from flights can be reduced to compensate. Does that not require the Government to revisit and revise the NPS, considering this new conditionality, which they have accepted?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As I have said previously, the Government are extremely grateful for the expert advice provided by the climate change committee. We are considering all the recommendations in its report and we will report back shortly.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s commitment in the energy White Paper to net zero for flights to European Economic Area countries. Therefore, could the Minister tell the House when the UK emissions trading scheme is likely to be aligned with our net zero trajectory, how it will take account of the non-CO2 warming effects of aviation and when net zero will be applied to all aviation, regardless of destination?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord raises a series of questions that probably cannot be answered briefly, so I will write to him.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, will my noble friend undertake to keep under review airport passenger duty, which is now charged at double the amount compared to EU destinations and will act as a brake to ramping up airline travel as soon as the Covid pandemic is over?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As my noble friend is aware, the Government are keeping airline passenger duty under review. We are aware that it has significant negative impacts, particularly on domestic flights, and we will consult in due course.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been covered, and we now move to the third Oral Question.
Circular Economy and Elimination of Waste
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Boycott
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage (1) a circular economy, and (2) the elimination of waste.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
My Lords, in the 25-year environment plan, the Government pledged to leave the environment in a better condition for the next generation, committing to eliminating avoidable waste and doubling our resource productivity by 2050. Our resources and waste strategy sets out how we will meet that commitment, moving society away from the inefficient linear economic model of take, make, use, throw to a more circular economy, where resources are kept in circulation for longer.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. I understand that the Government are going to publish a resource and waste strategy imminently—there was a policy statement last July. However, it is quite piecemeal in approach. Some 80% of the environmental impact is in the design phase, so to prevent waste we have to look at things such as built-in obsolescence and the manufacture of white goods which can only be repaired by the manufacturer and are in fact designed to be thrown away rather than reused. Will the Government produce a proper circular economy action plan, as the EU has done, and lay out how it can be put on to the statue book?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Environment Bill includes powers to introduce legislation on product or eco-design—for example, to support durable, repairable and recyclable products. It will also enable us to introduce extended producer responsibility schemes for packaging and a whole range of products, as well as a deposit return scheme, or DRS, for drinks containers. We are absolutely ready to initiate a whole suite of measures that will reduce waste and remove built-in obsolescence.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
Will the Minister update the House on how the Government plan to tackle planned obsolescence? Do they favour altering consumer rights legislation, taking a regulatory approach or introducing primary legislation?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, as I mentioned, the Environment Bill includes a whole suite of primary legislation measures, which, combined, will result in a move towards a more circular economy. That means tackling built-in obsolescence and encouraging manufacturers to produce products that can either be recycled, repaired or reused. It means removing waste as a default for manufacturers and shifting the emphasis as much as possible towards the producer and away from the consumer so that products are designed in such a way as to avoid a legacy of unnecessary waste.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I fear that the Minister has probably answered my question, but I recall that 60 years ago my father used to acquire damaged and scrapped cycles, rebuild them and sell them at auction. He was literally an early recycler, I suppose. Could manufacturers be legally required, by better design, to make access to items easier, thereby enabling the owner to repair as opposed to replace items such as domestic appliances?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
Yes, subject to the consultation that I mentioned earlier, it is possible, even likely, that manufacturers will be required to manufacture products that are not simply thrown away as a default. In addition, since publishing the resources and waste strategy, we have already introduced a whole range of measures. We have consulted, for example, on major reforms to the way in which waste is managed, including DRS, extended producer responsibility and consistent recycling. We have set up pilot schemes to reduce food waste and have published proposals for targets in the Environment Bill. Our carrier bag charge has been hugely successful; it will be extended to all retailers and increased to 10p. There is a range of bans on single-use plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds. We are not waiting for the Environment Bill to begin this process, but it will create a coherence and give us the powers that we need to go further.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, given that prevention is better than cure and to achieve food waste elimination ambitions recommended in the CCC’s sixth carbon budget, what steps is my noble friend taking to prevent household waste, beyond awareness campaigns, and to explore novel ways in which to make reducing food waste easier for households?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend raises a really important point. The UK is fully signed up to meeting the UN sustainable development goal 12.3 target, which seeks to halve global food waste at consumer and retail level by 2030. Our resource and waste strategy committed us to better redistributing food to those in need before it gets thrown away, and we have put £15 million into that. We are consulting on mandatory food waste prevention targets for businesses and publishing a food surplus and waste hierarchy to support businesses to prevent food waste. Around 3 million tonnes of waste has been prevented since 2013 and, of that, around 2.7 million tonnes is food waste.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, I was appalled to find that on leaving the EU, the UK will be exporting our plastic waste to third world countries, where it will be burned, releasing toxins into the atmosphere. I understand that countries receiving our toxic waste have the option to refuse it. Can the Minister reassure us that not only will he encourage his colleagues to ban the export of plastic waste, but he will campaign rigorously to reduce plastic waste to zero?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The noble Baroness has my commitment on both points. We recognise the problems of waste mountains in numerous countries that cannot or do not manage their waste properly. The Government have already committed to banning the export of plastic waste to countries that are not members of the OECD. In addition, the entire thrust of the Environment Bill that I mentioned earlier is designed to reduce all avoidable and unnecessary waste.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, on a related issue, is my noble friend satisfied with the functionality and efficiency of local council waste reception sites? Is he concerned, like me, that many types of waste materials taken to these sites are capable of being recycled—for instance, some plastics, shredded paper and other materials—but they are still being sent to landfill unnecessarily and perhaps in error? Perhaps guidance to the operators needs reviewing.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
There is no doubt that the recycling infrastructure or approach across the country is mixed. The Government are committed to a 65% recycling target for municipal waste by 2035, which is a significant increase on where we are now. One way in which we will do that is by requiring local authorities and other waste collectors to collect the same core set of recyclable materials—including plastics, but other materials as well—from households and businesses in England from 2023.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the order of change that the circular economy will effect on society must equally mean significant change in education, particularly in schools, not just in terms of content but fundamentally in classroom organisation and dynamics, with the encouragement of holistic thinking and multidisciplinary learning? Then there is the central role that design will play in future. Finland is leading on these changes, and we should be looking at this too.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, our goals in the 25-year environment plan are for zero avoidable waste, doubling our resource productivity by 2050 and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and impacts on nature relating to waste, as well as enhancing our resource security. One way in which we will be able to do that is by ensuring that the educational system—by which I mean not just what children are taught but the environment in which they are taught it—promotes an understanding and appreciation of the value of resources and the damage of resource waste. Education awareness is a key component; it is already a key component in the litter strategy for England. I believe that 80% of schools in England are already members of the eco-schools programme, and we are pushing hard to increase that. There are numerous other resources available for schools as well.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]
My Lords, WRAP has recommended that as we recover from the economic impact of Covid, government financial support to businesses should focus on remanufacturing and repair, which will generate new jobs and tackle structural unemployment. Does the Minister agree with that approach? What is he doing to deliver that investment, which, of course, will need to take place with other departments?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I certainly agree with that assessment, and the Government do too. Reusing and repairing products saves people money. Low-income households saved, we believe, £468 million in 2019 through reuse and repair. Widespread adoption and circular economy business models have the potential to add around £75 billion in gross value added to the UK economy, according to WRAP. It also believes that moving to a more circular economy, including recycling, could create around half a million jobs across all skill levels and regions in the UK. This is central to what we are attempting to achieve through our waste strategy and via the Environment Bill, which will facilitate the changes that are needed.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, electronic waste is an enormous problem, particularly given the speed at which we replace our devices. One of the main barriers to recycling is a concern about the security of those devices. Will the Minister give some urgent thought to how to support and extend initiatives to make devices secure and get them out to schools and other settings where they are badly needed?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
UK law can already be used to set requirements in relation to electronic equipment: on durability, repairability and recyclability. BEIS has run a call for evidence, which will be completed in June. Following that, BEIS and Defra have commissioned research to prioritise energy-related products for future eco-design regulation. I cannot confirm whether that work covers the security aspect that the noble Baroness raised, but I will write to her on that specifically following this session.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
The time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Nagorno-Karabakh
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cox
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the situation in the Nagorno-Karabakh region.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the Minister for the European Neighbourhood has spoken four times to the Armenian and Azerbaijani Foreign Ministers, most recently in November, when she welcomed the cessation of hostilities. We recognise that both sides have had to make difficult decisions to ensure the safety and security of their citizens. We of course remain deeply concerned by allegations of war crimes, desecration of cultural heritage and the humanitarian situation, and continue to raise these with all concerned parties.
Baroness Cox (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, is he aware that, despite the ceasefire, reports continue of atrocities perpetrated by Azerbaijani forces on Armenian military and civilian prisoners? During and since my visit, I have seen videos and photos of mutilations, torture and killings—there have been beheadings of Armenians—and heard of Azeris taking phones from prisoners, filming their torture and killings and sending these back to their families. Will Her Majesty’s Government act with great urgency to ensure that Azerbaijan is called to account for the continuing, well-documented atrocities, or will they allow Azerbaijan to maintain impunity?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that we continue to raise these issues at the highest level. My honourable friend Minister Morton, as well as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, are fully engaged on this agenda. We are, of course, supporting the OSCE Minsk co-chairs in this regard. On a positive note, we also welcome the recent news of an exchange of prisoners of war that took place on 14 December. However, atrocities need to be fully looked at and investigated.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, Nagorno-Karabakh remains a frozen conflict and a continuing danger to regional peace. So far, our role has been limited, if not irrelevant. Can the Minister say whether we shall concentrate on human rights, religious toleration and the protection of civilians and religious sites?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that the points he made are important areas to consider, not just in this conflict but in any conflict. I also assure him that those very points have been made in all our exchanges, with both sides. We have also emphasised the unfettered access of the ICRC to the region.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, following up on that, can the Minister tell the House what access the ICRC and other international bodies are being given in the area, to guard against feared ethnic cleansing? What follow-up might there be to independently investigate possible war crimes committed by either side?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness may know, on 30 October, the Foreign Secretary announced £1 million of funding to the ICRC to support its humanitarian efforts in this regard. We are working with international partners on the issue of access, to ensure that all people across the region receive the aid they require. It is important that crimes are fully investigated in any conflict, anywhere in the world. That is why we are very supportive of the work by the co-chairs of the Minsk Group of the OSCE in this respect.
Lord Pickles (Con) [V]
My Lords, following the recent ceasefire, Turkey suggested that it might deploy peacekeepers to the region. Does my noble friend agree that it is a prerequisite of a peacekeeper that they should enjoy the confidence of both sides? This is clearly not the case. What discussions have my noble friend and the Government had with the Turkish Government, our NATO partner, about how they might use their facilities to reduce tension within the region and ensure co-operation, so that those who have perpetrated war crimes and acts against humanity are brought to justice?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on the principle that peacekeepers need to have the support of all sides to the conflict. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the European Neighbourhood have engaged directly with their Turkish counterparts on the specific issue of Turkey.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, we all share a deep concern and revulsion at the extent of these atrocities and lots of words have been spoken. However, it still appears that not enough pressure has been brought to bear to try to resolve this issue. Can the Minister confirm what international conversations he has had with the UN and others to bring more pressure to bear to resolve this dreadful situation?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, discussions have taken place at all levels. I have already mentioned the support given at the OSCE. There have also been discussions on this at the UN Security Council. The important thing is that the cessation and peace deal that has been negotiated holds, that there is a return of prisoners and that, ultimately, there can be peace in a region which has suffered from conflict for too long.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I have two quick points. Picking up on the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the FCDO confirmed last month in a Written Answer that she had discussed humanitarian access with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Titov. Can the noble Lord tell us a bit more about the outcome of those discussions? Also, last October we had an announcement of £1 million going to humanitarian support. Can he update us on how that money has been distributed, and on what success the United Kingdom has had in encouraging others to give humanitarian support?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, if I may, I will write to the noble Lord on the impact of the £1 million. On discussions, we are of course raising the need both for support for all refugees in this context and for support within the region. We continue to impress on all authorities the key issue of unfettered access, also raised by my honourable friend in Russia.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, atrocities have been reported on both sides. Of course they must be investigated and prosecuted, but this conflict has been frozen for nearly 30 years. The rights of Armenians must be protected, but so should the rights of the more than 600,000 Azeris who have been displaced for more than a generation within their own country. So does the Minister agree that the international community, while recognising Nagorno-Karabakh as an integral part of Azerbaijan, has failed to progress a long-term solution? What can be done to ensure that this settlement leads to a permanent resolution and does not become the seed of a renewed conflict?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the important point is that all occupied territories are vacated and that, ultimately, the rights of citizens within Nagorno-Karabakh are respected. In this regard it is our view, as I have said, that the Minsk process provides the basis on which this can be taken forward, and we implore all sides to co-operate fully.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry [V]
My Lords, as has been implied, thousands of Armenian monuments and cultural heritage sites are now under Azerbaijan’s control, including ancient churches, monasteries and cemeteries. There is evidence that Azerbaijan has already begun to deny the Armenian heritage of these sites, so what steps are the Government taking to support UNESCO in drawing up an inventory of the most significant cultural monuments, and have conversations been had with Azerbaijan about its responsibilities under the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the right reverend Prelate that the protection of heritage and religious sites is an important part of the discussions that take place with both sides, including on the case of Nagorno-Karabakh referred to in his question. On the issue of UNESCO making a detailed assessment of specific sites, I will need to write to him.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, according to Genocide Watch’s 10 stages of the genocidal process, published in November, Azerbaijan had already reached stage 9, extermination, and stage 10, denial. What steps will Her Majesty’s Government take to fulfil their duty to protect and provide for the victims of Azerbaijan’s genocidal policies in the recent war?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I have already said, I assure my noble friend that the Government have implored both sides to protect all citizens, particularly those in Nagorno-Karabakh, to make sure they have their rights protected and guaranteed. My noble friend will be aware that it is a long-standing government policy that genocide is a matter for judicial decision rather than for Governments or non-judicial bodies.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. That brings us to the end of Question Time.
Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme: Working Parents and School Closures
Lord Woolley of Woodford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the report published by the TUC Working mums: Paying the price published on 14 January, what action they plan to take to support working parents and those with caring responsibilities to access the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme who (1) cannot work due to the latest school closures and (2) were denied or not offered furlough.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the furloughing of staff is a voluntary arrangement entered into at the employer’s discretion and agreed by employees. It is not for the Government to decide whether a firm should put its staff on furlough. However, the eligibility criteria are clear that an employee is eligible if they are unable to work, including at home, due to caring responsibilities resulting from Covid.
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am sure it will not be lost on noble Lords that today is Martin Luther King Jr Day. It is in his spirit of fighting for social and racial justice that I make a passionate plea to the Minister that we confront head-on the findings from the latest TUC report that so many parents and carers—particularly mothers—often working for low pay, many of whom are black, Asian and minority ethnic, are being denied furlough. Can we have temporary legislation for these parents to be afforded furlough during this difficult time or, at the very least, give a clear direction to employers about their obligation? Like many, I am also very worried about the stress and impact on mental health this is causing for parents and their children, which will only get worse if we do nothing.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government are acutely aware of the pressures faced by working parents, with schools shut. We do not intend to change how the furlough system operates; as I said, it is a voluntary decision by employers and employees. However, we have put in place far more support to parents during the current lockdown compared with when schools were previously closed; for example, they have the right to form a childcare bubble to help with their childcare demands, and there is a requirement on all schools to provide a minimum level of high-quality online learning to children while schools are shut.
Lord Monks (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this TUC report is another excellent piece of work by my old organisation. It highlights the heavy pressures of the pandemic on working families, especially mothers, many of whom are juggling low pay, awkward hours, childcare and home schooling. How are the Government going to address these problems? Will they, as the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, asked, plug this gap in the furlough scheme after consideration? At the same time, will they address other gaps in support which have been highlighted in the recent report of your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee; for example, for the 500,000 self-employed?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, the Government consider that a voluntary arrangement for the furlough scheme is the appropriate one, while being very clear that the eligibility criteria allow parents and carers to be furloughed where they are unable to work, including from home, due to Covid affecting their caring responsibilities. We have put more support in place during this third national lockdown, including keeping childcare settings open for preschool children, to help alleviate the burden on parents.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, one group has definitely been left out. This report also calls for access to the furlough scheme for the clinically extremely vulnerable who cannot work from home but are required medically to shield. Currently, these individuals are entitled only to statutory sick pay; at just £95.85 per week, how are these shielding people meant to be able to support their families over many months? When will the Government correct this inequality and add them to the furlough scheme?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the guidance for the furlough scheme is also clear that those required to shield because they are clinically extremely vulnerable are eligible for the scheme under its current rules. The other piece of hope for the clinically extremely vulnerable is the fact that we have sent out 5 million letters, starting today, to those over 70 and the clinically extremely vulnerable to start their programme of vaccination.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, since these difficulties for parents are caused by the inability of the local authority to perform its responsibility under the statutory duty of the parents to send their child to school and the local authority’s duty to receive the child, is there a legal responsibility on the local authority to deal with these difficulties?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I say to my noble and learned friend that the decision to shut schools in England was taken by central government. However, we have set out clear, legally binding requirements for local authority and academy schools to provide high-quality remote education, equivalent in length to the core teaching pupils would have received in school: from three hours a day for key stage 1 to five hours a day for key stages 3 and 4.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, the TUC report shows the difficulties faced by the parents of children unable to go to school in the Covid lockdown. It is not easy for some to work from home, reschedule work or incur the cost of reducing working hours. Does the Minister agree that we should urgently consider copying the initiatives in Germany and Italy of giving the parents of young children some additional paid leave to help in the present crisis?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, in international comparisons, our furlough scheme is actually more generous than many other countries’ and has fewer eligibility criteria than other countries’. But the Government completely understand the pressure that working parents are under. That is why we worked hard to keep schools open for as long as possible, and that is why we are working to get transmission rates down as quickly as possible so that we can reopen schools and get children back to the place where they are best off.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is vital that the Government respond swiftly and decisively to new developments in the fight against the pandemic. The impacts of school closures on parents were apparent during the first national lockdown, and yet the Chancellor did nothing to ensure that the furlough scheme would be fit for purpose in the event of further closures. The TUC has provided clear evidence that the scheme is not fit for working parents, so will the Government now build in the flexibility that parents so badly need? Further, will they finally extend the eligibility of other schemes to those who have thus far been excluded from desperately needed finance?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government are clear that the furlough scheme can be used flexibly by employers—it can be used to accommodate those employees who cannot work due to their caring needs arising from Covid. They have extended eligibility in the extended scheme to account for employees who were taken on since the furlough scheme first operated. Learning from our first experience, we have put other measures in place to support parents, including childcare bubbles and the provision of high-quality online education.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have a suspicion that among Members of the House of Lords there are not many single parents who are home educating their young children. I am one of those, however, and I spent last week with my 11, 12 and eight year-olds, helping to home educate them and doing everything else that they needed. I do not have to choose between my job and looking after my children but many people are in that position. Surely, at the very least, there should be some rights for these parents to have support where the schools are not open. In addition, if employers are not prepared to support them, at the very least employers should be required to give them their job back at the end of this period.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right that where parents need to take leave for caring responsibilities they have the right to do so, and if that is taken for under 26 weeks, they have the right to return to the same job when they return to work.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, following on from the previous question, might it be possible for the Government to consider extending the carers’ leave, given that the pandemic has gone on for so long, so that it is more akin to maternity leave and lasts for a longer period in these exceptional circumstances?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the right to take parental leave is one of a number of options open to parents. We hope that employers will work with their employees to find the best solution in each circumstance, including the use of the furlough scheme where appropriate and where the eligibility criteria are clear.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, juggling childcare, home schooling and work is extremely challenging, with many facing the dilemma of choosing between home schooling their children or work, especially when they cannot work from home. Clearly, this serious issue needs addressing urgently. Can any legal obligation to offer furlough include backdating payments to allow payments to those who have already had to take unpaid leave and therefore lost valuable income because they did not have alternative childcare arrangements?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Government do not intend to change the operation of the furlough scheme from a voluntary scheme for employers to use to a legal obligation for employers to offer it. We do not believe that that is the right way forward. However, we are providing additional support to parents facing a very difficult situation in juggling work and home schooling.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the TUC report points out that financial insecurity is having a bad effect on the well-being and mental health of mums. This will affect family well-being, as well as poverty, inequalities and social mobility for children—which are perennial issues outside crises. Does the Minister think that it is high time for the Government to appoint a senior Minister totally focused on children and families to safeguard their rights, welfare and progress?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I believe there is a Minister for Children and Families who has that responsibility in the department. However, I completely take the noble Baroness’s point on the pressures on parents, including with regard to financial security. That is why the Government have put over £7 billion more into the welfare system in this financial year to support people through the current crisis.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the TUC has highlighted the challenge. Surely the only answer in the short term is to use the February half-term break to vaccinate all teaching and non-teaching staff and get the children back into school. Perhaps the Minister will take that back to her colleagues in Cabinet.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to take that back, but as regards the vaccination schedule, we are following the initial first wave set out by the JCVI, which goes by clinical vulnerability and particularly by age. I know that we will consider further waves after that and that we will consider the latest evidence, including on transmission and the impact on workers and public services.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
But is the Minister not aware that in an unprecedentedly large response, the TUC found that more than 70% of those who asked their employers to put them forward for furlough were refused? The Government are refusing to make this a legal obligation on the very same day that down the Corridor, in the Commons, they are refusing to continue the £20 increase in universal credit. They are being exposed yet again for the mean and heartless Government they are.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The support that the Government have put in place through the furlough scheme and other schemes during this pandemic is absolutely unprecedented compared to any time in our history. The Government are there for families and people struggling through very difficult times, and will continue to be.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have now been asked.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
I will call Members to speak in the order in which they are listed on today’s list. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted, and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of the amendment and the Minister, Members may speak only once in each group. Short questions of elucidation on a Minister’s response are permitted, but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk in advance.
The groupings are binding, and it is not possible to de-group an amendment for separate debate. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment to a Division must give notice either in the debate or by emailing the clerk in advance. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect the voices in the Chamber only, so if a Member taking part remotely wants their voice to be accounted for when the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.
Trade Bill
Monday 18th January 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Trade Bill 2019-21 View all Trade Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 160-I Marshalled List for Third Reading - (13 Jan 2021)
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Trade Bill, has consented to place her prerogative, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
I call the Minister to make a statement on legislative consent.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, as the Government have made clear throughout all stages of the Trade Bill, the UK Government are committed to working closely with the devolved Administrations to deliver an independent trade policy that works for the whole of the UK. I am pleased to say that the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament have both granted legislative consent, and I am grateful to colleagues in the Welsh and Scottish Governments, who have worked tirelessly to consider this Bill and schedule the necessary votes. However, the Northern Ireland Executive have not brought forward a legislative consent memorandum, and the Assembly has therefore not voted on legislative consent. I reassure noble Lords that the Government will continue to engage with the Northern Ireland Executive.
Clause 8: Standards affected by international trade agreements
Amendment 1
Lord Collins of Highbury
Member’s explanatory statement
This is to clarify the drafting of this provision.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Grantchester, who has unfortunately been delayed on his way to the House, I beg to move Amendment 1. This is a technical amendment to correct an error that was made in the original drafting, and I understand that the Minister and the Government will not be opposing it.
Lord Lansley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say just a few words about this amendment. Although it is technical, the intention is to provide clarity to that part of Clause 8 which sets out the procedure whereby the Government propose to implement an international trade agreement which has an impact on standards in domestic legislation relating to, for example, social, environmental or animal welfare standards. I completely understand that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, in tabling this amendment is to make it clear that the legislation relating to standards should complete its parliamentary processes, as the clause says, prior to the trade agreement being laid.
I am not really speaking about that aspect of it. Indeed, I draw attention to the fact that, notwithstanding Clause 8, Clause 7 has what I would regard—not least because I moved the relevant amendment at Report—as a better formulation, which requires the subordinate legislation, secondary instruments, to have been laid before the ratification of the trade agreement and for the primary legislation required for its implementation to have been passed before ratification. However, Clause 8, as clarified by this amendment, has the effect of meaning that the parliamentary procedure in relation to domestic legislation has to be completed before those texts are laid before Parliament. I think that is unnecessary and rather burdensome, and it would be better to rest on the text in Clause 7, which requires the legislation to have been passed prior to ratification.
The point I want to make is actually about impact assessments. If, in response to this short debate, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester—who I see is, happily, now in his place—can explain why impact assessments should not be laid before Parliament prior to the completion of parliamentary processes relating to the implementation of domestic legislation, I would welcome that. That seems unnecessary—indeed, undesirable. It would be better were impact assessments formulated and laid before Parliament relating to domestic legislation which implements any change in standards in this country consequent to an agreement in an international trade context. For them not to be required by legislation to be laid before Parliament until the text of the trade agreement itself is laid seems unnecessary and undesirable.
I do not oppose the amendment, as it has the effect of making clear that subsection. However, what the subsection suggests, particularly for impact assessments, is undesirable. As it happens, as we dispatch the Bill to the other place, this clause rather duplicates what is set out in Clause 7. It would be better to retain Clause 7, rather than the formulation in this part of Clause 8.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome Amendment 1, as it brings greater clarity, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester—who I am delighted to see in his place—for bringing it forward.
I take this opportunity to put a question to my noble friend the Minister, and to thank him for the openness he has shown throughout proceedings on the Bill. Does he have a timeframe in mind as to when the code of practice, as envisaged under Clause 8, is to be brought forward? I imagine that is also subject to Amendment 1 before us this afternoon. Will the code of practice envisaged be general, or does he envisage that a separate code of practice for each future international trade agreement may need to come before the House?
As my noble friend is aware, I care passionately about maintaining the standards in paragraphs (a) to (f): in particular, food, animal welfare and the environment. Does he share my concern at the noises off, which are saying that, now we have left the European Union, we do not have to maintain those high standards? Can he, from the Government’s perspective, quash any such move, paying tribute to British farmers and to the high standards to which they produce our food, to which consumers have become accustomed and wish to continue to purchase? With that, I give Amendment 1 a warm welcome.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD) [V]
My Lords, I also welcome the amendment, and I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who is back in his place. I hope his journey was safe.
I want to pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in his characteristically accurate and sensible contribution. We will probably debate impact assessments, including their value and necessity, to some degree during ping-pong if the Government make the regrettable decision not to support what was Amendment 6, which refers to the need for independently verified impact assessments on trade agreements. Many of us are rather startled, and indeed worried, by the fact that, on the biggest trade agreement of them all—the one with our European Union partners—the Government have maintained a position of refusing an economic impact assessment, even after all the statements made during the passage of this Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, whom I hold in very high regard, that it is the Government’s position that every trade agreement will come with an impact assessment. I hope the Government can clarify their position and say that we will get an impact assessment with our trade agreement with the European Union.
I want to comment on the necessity of having this amendment corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, as has been remarked on. In an interview in the Financial Times last week, Tim Smith, the outgoing chair of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, made some very strong statements, which I support, about the UK not entering a “race to the bottom”, needing to be vigilant on behalf of the different elements of the UK—rural and agricultural business, in particular—and wanting to see the Government, in their permanent arrangements for the independent body that we have now established under the Bill, being as strong as possible on standards.
I therefore share the unease indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, whom it is always a pleasure to follow in these debates. The Government seem set on an agenda that demonstrates why their approach needs to be different from that previously taken in the European Union. This might be just to show that we are different, rather than being at all meaningful, but the damaging aspect is that, as Tim Smith indicated, there are many countries with which we have had rollover agreements—and will have trade agreements in future—but which do not prohibit the use of the same chemicals, additives and procedures in the rural industry as we do. Our trading relationships with them should be about us maintaining our standards and working with partners to see the ever-increasing standards that they enjoy.
This minor and technical amendment, which I hope we will see go through to be in the finalised Bill after the House of Commons considers it, is of value. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has brought it forward and I support it.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief in my remarks on Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I will restrict my remarks to this amendment rather than to the underlying amendment that it would amend.
We disagree with the fundamentals of the clause voted into the Bill on Report. However, we believe that there is no sense in dividing your Lordships’ House over this amendment, which aims to clarify ambiguities in the drafting in a previous amendment. I noted carefully the comments made by my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
As far as the code of practice and its timing are concerned, until the Bill has completed its passage and been subjected to ping-pong, we will not know exactly what will be in it, so we have not yet turned our attention to the detail and substance of the code.
I agree completely with the comments of my noble friend Lady McIntosh on the importance of food standards; we have been pleased to reiterate that constantly during the passage of the Bill. I join her in applauding the great work our farmers do day in, day out.
We will not oppose this minor and technical change to the clause, and we will return to debate the detail of this provision at the appropriate time.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I shall start with a quick apology. My train down this morning was part of the new lockdown schedules and did not exist, so I took the next one; I thought that I would still be all right but, as we discovered, I was two or three minutes late. I apologise for that. I thank my noble friend Lord Collins for standing in for me and moving the amendment formally, which is all I would have done in any case as this amendment was discussed earlier during the passage of the Bill. I was notified that it was slightly unclear—hence the correction before the House today.
I am grateful for the further comments I received from noble Lords in looking at the amendment again, but the substantive point is that we are happy to have this part of the Bill looked at again by the Commons and to have time to discuss it, because the points are well expressed and the thrust of the amendment is very cogent. The Commons will look at it among the totality of the clauses in the Bill. I am sure that this will give an opportunity for further clarity, assimilation and—how can I put this?—alignment between the various clauses to make better sense of it.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, yes, it is important that statutory instruments come with impact assessments. As to whether an impact assessment is required for every trade Bill—or, indeed, every statutory instrument needed for every trade Bill—I am sure that the Minister, when he is going through trade Bills and the CRaG procedures as determined already, and by amendments to this Bill, will clarify that and make it clear. I am sure that he will also make it clear that, of course, once this Bill becomes legislation, the Government will do all they can to facilitate a full debate in both Houses.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 2. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Schedule 3: Exceptions to restrictions in the devolution settlements
Amendment 2
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of four Government drafting amendments to correct the place at which a provision is inserted into the Scotland Act 1998, in consequence of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 inserting an equivalent provision.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, as stated on Report, the Government bring forward these amendments in the light of the passage of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. These amendments will revise the paragraph numbering in Schedule 3 to accord with the amendments made to the respective devolution Acts by the aforementioned Act. Schedule 3 relates to exceptions to restrictions in the devolution settlements. Although these amendments amend Schedule 3, I assure noble Lords that they are minor and technical and will not make any substantive policy changes to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, my interests are as listed on the register. I will be brief; I fully endorse all the amendments proposed in this group.
I have a few comments on the proposed trade and agriculture commission but, first, on behalf of my friends on the Cross Benches, I thank the Minister for being so helpful and considerate throughout the passage of this Bill. His patience and willingness to engage have been very much appreciated, particularly when the sense of time pressure has been apparent. Obviously, the constraints of the pandemic have imposed on the parliamentary process, and coupled with the need to speedily expedite so many Bills to meet the timetable determined by leaving the European Union, this has placed enormous pressure on the system—not only on Ministers but on the myriad of staff teams that have of necessity been required to support this demanding timetable. I thank all for their valuable support, which has been incredibly important and is very much appreciated.
I thank the Government again for recognising the need for the trade and agriculture commission, and for deciding to give it statutory footing through the Bill. This is a hugely important step forward and is valued by all key stakeholders. I have a very straightforward request for clarity from the Minister, and I apologise for raising this again. It is on the relationship between the TAC and the food standards agencies. I am deliberately using the plural because of the separate functions that exist within the United Kingdom, and these amendments today are addressing issues relating to the United Kingdom. Removing human health from the remit of the TAC—because, one assumes, the food standards agencies will undertake that responsibility—raises the question of how this will work in practice when a new trade deal is being scrutinised by all these bodies, and how this will be reported to Parliament. Will there be a number of separate reports, will the individual bodies and agencies collaborate and produce a joint report, or will the Secretary of State filter the various reports before submitting to Parliament?
I know that the Minister tried to respond to these issues on Report, so I apologise that I am probably stretching his patience to the limit, but I am still rather confused and would appreciate it if he could please explain it again so that I have clarity. I end by thanking all staff once again for their immensely valuable help with this most important Bill.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests, notably as chair of the UK-ASEAN Business Council, and of Crown Agents. I congratulate the Minister and my noble friend Lord Younger on getting this important Bill to this stage after such an extended passage. I endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, about the support provided by the Ministers and their professional and helpful team.
Britain has a great trading history and we must enter the new era with confidence, backed by our strengthened Department for International Trade and the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I spell them out for good reason: there is potential in goods, services and digital.
My noble friend will recall that there were some uncertainties on Report, and that in summing up and withdrawing his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, said that he or I might come back at Third Reading. This seems the right place to ask my questions, since the operation of powers in the devolved nations was under discussion. That has been clarified in these government amendments, to which I do not object, despite the earlier reservations I had expressed. I have given advance notice in the hope that the Minister can reassure me.
The clauses on trade information enable HMRC to collect information about UK exporters. It has been made clear all along that compliance with the request would be entirely voluntary. On Report, my noble friend the Minister said that the practical implementation of this would be a “tick box” on the tax returns—presumably, both corporate and personal. However, he gave no indication of the sorts of questions that would be asked; can he kindly do so today? I appreciate that this will be in regulations in accordance with what was Clause 7(4), but we need an idea of what information will be sought. For example, will it be the name of the trader, and which country or countries they exported to in the tax year in question? Will they need to provide a breakdown of customs headings?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome this group of amendments. I pay tribute to my noble friend and his colleagues, who have successfully engaged the legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament. I say that as someone of Scottish descent, and a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates.
I honestly do not believe that we would have got to this pass if it had not been for the intervention of a number of noble Lords, but especially the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, among others, who intervened at all stages of what is now the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. I hope my noble friend will join me in paying tribute to the ongoing discussions on the framework agreements between the four nations that will be increasingly important as we develop trade, agriculture and environmental policy. But I am sure that there was more than a minor hiccup in engaging with the Scottish Parliament, so I congratulate him and I welcome these amendments in bringing us to that pass. Although he describes them as technical and not significant, I think they are a major step along the path to securing the passing of the Bill as it proceeds to the Commons.
Lord Fox (LD) [V]
Following two previous attempts spread over years, the Trade Bill seems finally to be making its way towards the statute book, perhaps by way of ping-pong. These amendments were described by the Minister as essentially technical housekeeping. I agree with him and certainly with the amendments, but perhaps it is appropriate that the final amendments we will discuss focus on inserting the Bill into the devolution settlement, as symbolised by the Scotland Act.
As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, the Trade Bill is about setting Westminster’s role for the future, just as the internal market Bill did. I am pleased to hear about the legislative consent from Scotland and Wales, but in the past months these Benches have shown that we disagree with the way the Bill has avoided the effective involvement of Parliaments and Assemblies in the United Kingdom, taking a lot of power for the Executive.
But we have had those debates, and I will use this time to focus on some elements of the application the Trade Bill might enjoy. It is worth pointing out that the UK will be embarking on this so-called independent trade policy when the global trading environment is—how should I put it?—challenging. Even before the massive uncertainty of the global pandemic there were increasing trade tensions and a slowdown in the global economy.
Yet when I listen to the words coming from government mouths, I often hear echoes of British exceptionalism. Phrases such as “sovereign island nation”, when trotted out, seem to hark back to the 19th century. It is this backward view of the world that most disturbs me. I hear overtones that reflect the use of trade deals in a way that European nations did to compete for imperial domination in the 1800s.
At the heart of this is a total lack of understanding of the nature of modern global supply chains. Despite ministerial remonstrations when debating the Bill, it is impossible for me not to take the recent deals as examples of trade policy and how they are being applied. Of course, we could look at the rollover deals, but none of these has delivered anything material that we did not have before, so there is not much material there.
Then we come to the EU and UK deal. Clearly, there are substantial changes here that point to the direction we are travelling in. It is hard. It demonstrates this lack of understanding of how the flow of goods and services is facilitated by supply chains. Such flows are no longer maintained by access to the clipper ships of the East India Company, as this nostalgia seems to reflect, but nurtured by standards, people and data—three areas the EU trade agreement fails to enhance.
The role of shared standards and regulations is becoming only too apparent to our exporters struggling with serious border friction. Meanwhile, the lubricating effect to trade of mobility frameworks and mutual recognition of skills has yet to impinge on the wider public. However, I believe the tone of the Government’s responses to amendments addressing these issues will ultimately be seen as foolish. Finally, there has been no progress on data flows. That problem has just started.
Christmas Eve was not the end of this story; it was one step in a long process of negotiation. There will be protracted and difficult discussions about implementing the provisions covering trade in goods. We are starting to see this. Then there are two key areas outstanding. The first is financial services. Talks on an equivalence deal are taking place over the next three months, but this will exclude core banking services such as lending, payments and deposit-taking. If the EU and the UK fail to secure agreement, the UK will be left with the task of negotiating separately with 27 member states.
Then, as I said, there is data adequacy. The EU Parliament has severe reservations regarding sharing data with the UK. There is great suspicion over the potential onward transfer of data to the USA. Overcoming these fears will require much more than the Prime Minister looking into the eyes of MEPs and saying, “Trust me”.
However these go, the EU and the UK will remain in low-level dispute on all sorts of issues far into the future. Through all this, the UK will have to calculate the impact of whatever is agreed with the EU on its efforts to conclude bilateral trade agreements with other countries.
I question how the Government will use the much-vaunted freedom that they and the Prime Minister parade. As my noble friend Lord Purvis indicated, the UK Government are already looking for opportunities to diverge from the EU to demonstrate the symbolic value of Brexit and perhaps to pursue what they see as an advantage. Yet each change, each extra difference adds new friction to the EU-UK trade border. For every action there stands a possible reaction and a cost. We will see as time goes on whether the UK trade machine has the depth and sophistication to walk these lines. The weekend leaks on the working time directive and the Chancellor’s “big bang 2” speech seem to indicate otherwise.
The Bill sets a framework for trade. The Executive have taken upon themselves such powers that they will have no one else to blame for the results.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, these are minor and technical amendments. Agreeing to them should pose no difficulty to us. In introducing them the Minister spoke very warmly about his commitment to working with the devolved Administrations. It is very good to hear that two of the three have now passed their required legislative consent Motions. It is a pity that Northern Ireland simply was not able to do so, but it does speak to progress.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, made a good point about the need to keep an eye on the ball here, because these issues go far wider than just the trade debate. They certainly came up on the internal market Act, but they go further than that as well. We need to be sure that those who work and operate outside central London feel confident that the responsibilities available and open to them to achieve what they want for their communities will not be obstructed by any centralising force in government. This will come out of this Bill, but it also needs to be taken account of much more widely.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Curry, made on the TAC. This body is still shrouded in a certain amount of mystery. Maybe we can reach some further development on that with Amendment 1, which we discussed earlier, but we still need to spend some time talking about how we might take forward the issues that remain unresolved as the Bill goes from here to the Commons.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, was extremely agile in finding a way to bring back an issue she had raised previously. I respect her ability to do that. I also look forward to the Minister’s response. There seem to be two big issues here. There is the question about how the trade information will be gathered: will it be tick-box, voluntary or otherwise? If it is voluntary and tick-box, why is it necessary to use such an extraordinary amount of legislative time, and in particular the Henry VIII power in the Bill? The legislation seems to require only a very minor change to encourage people to register their interests in exports. If that is the case, why on earth does the Minister need to take powers that might change primary legislation? I look forward to his full response to that.
The noble Baroness also raised confidentiality, which I know she feels very strongly about. It can perhaps be dealt with without too much consideration, because it seems obvious, but it could bear further examination. Perhaps further discussions can take place, if not today, on what is happening with the information that has been gathered.
We have no objection on the narrow point of the government amendments before us. I am sure that they will pass.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate, and I am very grateful for their kind words about those who have worked so hard on this Bill. I will come back to this during my Third Reading speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, was characteristically eloquent, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was characteristically practical. I have carefully noted their comments. The noble Lord, Lord Curry, asked about the reports that would be made in relation to matters in this Bill under the Agriculture Act. To clarify, there are effectively two reports. The statutory Trade and Agriculture Commission must make a report, which will be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State too must lay a report according to the provisions of the Act. His or her report will of course be informed by the report of the statutory Trade and Agriculture Commission, but will also draw on expertise from other sources; for example, there will be a requirement to report on the impact of matters covered by the report on human health.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe raised a few specific points which I will briefly reassure her on. Like her, speaking from the viewpoint of practical businesspeople, I abhor red tape and can confirm that we have no intention of adding to the mountain of it that already exists. I can give my noble friend a complete reassurance that the question on the tax form will absolutely be a simple and voluntary tick box, asking “Do you export goods or services?” Companies will not be required to provide a breakdown of customs headings and literally no other information will be sought other than that tick. I can also confirm that the Government have done an impact assessment on the entire Bill. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it was agreed that this additional question on the corporation tax form—or, where appropriate, the self-assessment form—was regarded as a minimum burden on business. If there was a word that meant “smaller than minimum”, it could have been used. I also reassure my noble friend that the Henry VIII power will be used only to place the necessary question into the tax form.
Finally, I can provide a complete assurance that commercially sensitive record-level data collected by HMRC on exporters and others would be exempt from a freedom of information request. Responses to such requests must not disclose information that is in breach of other law. In this case, sharing disclosive information about businesses or people collected by HMRC would be in contravention of the Commissioners of Revenue and Customs Act 2005 and the Data Protection Act 2018, and of course there are penalties for so doing. I hope that my words provide complete reassurance to my noble friend.
This has been a short but useful debate, and I would be grateful for the support of the House in making these minor and technical amendments.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of four Government drafting amendments to correct the place at which a provision is inserted into the Scotland Act 1998, in consequence of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 inserting an equivalent provision.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of four Government drafting amendments to correct the place at which a provision is inserted into the Scotland Act 1998, in consequence of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 inserting an equivalent provision.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of four Government drafting amendments to correct the place at which a provision is inserted into the Scotland Act 1998, in consequence of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 inserting an equivalent provision.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of four Government drafting amendments to correct the place at which a provision is inserted into the Government of Wales Act 2006, in consequence of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 inserting an equivalent provision.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of four Government drafting amendments to correct the place at which a provision is inserted into the Government of Wales Act 2006, in consequence of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 inserting an equivalent provision.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of four Government drafting amendments to correct the place at which a provision is inserted into the Government of Wales Act 2006, in consequence of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 inserting an equivalent provision.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of four Government drafting amendments to correct the place at which a provision is inserted into the Government of Wales Act 2006, in consequence of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 inserting an equivalent provision.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of four Government drafting amendments to correct the place at which a provision is inserted into the Northern Ireland Act 1998, in consequence of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 inserting an equivalent provision.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of four Government drafting amendments to correct the place at which a provision is inserted into the Northern Ireland Act 1998, in consequence of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 inserting an equivalent provision.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of four Government drafting amendments to correct the place at which a provision is inserted into the Northern Ireland Act 1998, in consequence of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 inserting an equivalent provision.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of four Government drafting amendments to correct the place at which a provision is inserted into the Northern Ireland Act 1998, in consequence of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 inserting an equivalent provision.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, as we come to the end of the legislative process for the Bill in this House, I will say a few words to express my sincere gratitude to those who have made its progress possible, starting with my noble friend Lord Younger, whose support throughout this process has been invaluable, especially to a rookie Minister such as myself. I am hugely in his debt. He has shown me the ropes, he has been a deep well of knowledge on parliamentary process and he has stepped up time and again during the debates.
I also thank my predecessor in this role, my noble friend Lady Fairhead, who laid the groundwork in so many ways and whose prior work undoubtedly made the passage of this Bill so much smoother. Any credit for this Bill should surely start with her. I pay particular respect to the noble Lords who have taken their time to meet with me, virtually, to listen to me and to advocate for their issues, and particularly thank the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. I also thank my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Lady Noakes and Lord Lansley.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Berkeley, for their expertise and relentless advocacy of important issues that often get subsumed in the wider debate. There is one notable addition to the names I have just mentioned. My predecessor, my noble friend Lady Fairhead, singled out the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his contributions in the 2017-19 Bill, and I do the same. Without his forthright counsel, his expertise and his patience, the Bill would not be where it is today.
But this has been very much a team performance. Behind the scenes, civil servants have put in an unbelievable job of work. My thanks go to them, to my private office—in particular, my private secretary Donald Selmani—and to those in the Department for International Trade and across Government who have helped get the Bill to this point. With permission, I will specifically mention the Bill team, whose support has been invaluable not only to myself but to many Members of our House, beginning with the previous Bill manager, Gail Davis, who has expertly guided this Bill and who will now enjoy a well-earned retirement after a distinguished career in the Civil Service. I also pay tribute to the other members of the Bill team, past and present. James Copeland, the current Bill manager, has been on this legislation since day one. I suspect that he is almost as hopeful as noble Lords of getting it on the statute book. I should also mention members of his team: Alistair Ford, Oscar Burbidge, Ross Holton and Thomas Bingham. Finally, I thank the parliamentary staff, the doorkeepers and the clerks, for their patience and professionalism, and I know that I speak for the whole House when I thank all those who have helped make the hybrid process a success during the time of this dreadful pandemic.
This has been my first experience of taking a major and substantive Bill through the House and I do believe that the legislation, after the hard work that Peers have put into it, will be a credit to all Members of this House and the other place and will have a significant positive impact on the citizens and businesses of this great country.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very graceful and elegant introduction of this brief part of the Bill. Votes of thanks are very difficult to do, whether in the Chamber, as they were here, remotely or as part of a more social gathering. It is very difficult to get them right, but I think everyone would agree that this was very nicely done.
The Minister is a relative newcomer to our work, although he has got into the groove very quickly and been able to manage it very successfully. Of course, he has a secret: he started his career in the Civil Service. Therefore, it is to be expected that members of the Bill team have welcomed him back, as it were, and have supported him in a way that has allowed him to do his job with a great level of skill.
I often think that Bills passing through your Lordships’ House acquire a character of their own. This Bill might be described in a number of ways. “Groundhog Day” would be most people’s choice, but that would involve a daily repetition whereas this Bill has been with us only twice. I say “only”, but each time it has repeated much of the stuff that we have dealt with before. The first time it went through with the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, and it was very different because of changed circumstances.
However, that comparison perhaps does not work quite so well, so I suggest that we are talking about a version of “Hamlet”. Parts of this Trade Bill are perhaps Rosencrantz and Guildenstern: they, too, are involved in events often happening just outside their understanding and make all-too-infrequent appearances before escorting Hamlet to England and an untimely offstage death—such a waste of such wonderful characters. I will leave others to speculate who played the other parts. I certainly have in mind characters who might be accused of playing Polonius and others who might have played the Player King.
Of course, having the Bill twice, as we have had, may bring other benefits. One suspects that there are probably several PhDs and books to be written about how different approaches were taken over the two cycles of the Bill, the changes in Ministers, the impact of the changes in the political environment and even the change from real to virtual debate, which was mentioned by the Minister, which will have had an impact. I think it might be interesting see them in a few years’ time.
However, we need to focus on where we go next with the Bill. The Government have achieved their target of getting it through all its stages in your Lordships’ House, but it is not finished. In 2019, the then Minister kindly acknowledged that she felt the Bill had been “improved” by its passage through your Lordships’ House. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, also implied that, although he did not quite say so in the same words, but I thank him for his thanks to us and the others who have contributed to the Bill.
I am sure that I speak for all those involved in the Bill, indeed, for the whole House, when I say that this is, amazingly, the first Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, has done, and he has done so with extraordinary skill. The idea that only a few months ago he made his maiden speech at Second Reading of the Bill means that we have to look in a new light at his ability to catch up and work forward. He has been very good at organising meetings and providing the information we wanted. Indeed, at one point I had to remonstrate with him about his propensity to email me and colleagues at all hours of the day and night and at weekends. Enough is enough, I think—although he did not seem to take the message.
The noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, whom the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, mentioned in his speech, supported him very well and showed his usual charm and courtesy at the Dispatch Box. The Bill team, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, was exemplary. We have had a very good service from them and I thank them very much for that. He also mentioned the debt of gratitude we owe to the broadcasting hub and to the staff of the House for making it possible to deliver the Bill at all. My struggles today have been a good example of that. I have been able to communicate at very short notice in a way that I did not think was possible when the internet went down a couple of hours ago.
Outside the House, we have been assisted by the Greener UK alliance and the Trade Justice Movement, in particular. Over the period that we have been involved in the Bill, it has been interesting to see how external groups and civic society have become more interested in trade policy. This is a good thing, given that it is crucial to us as a nation going forward. That is something we want to build on and have endure.
I have been supported in this phase of the Bill by my noble friends Lord Grantchester, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Lennie, our Whip, who have coped very well with me in my “Hamlet” mode. Dan Harris, our legislative assistant, has also been absolutely brilliant and has supported the whole enterprise, even sacrificing his birthday celebrations on one occasion to make sure that papers were made ready and got out. His negotiations with the Public Bill Office have been a joy because I have not had to do them.
We have made a number of changes to the Bill which we hope will be considered sympathetically by the other place tomorrow. I say again to the Minister that we are not far apart on many of these issues, and it would be good to meet him in the interim to see whether there is further common ground to be hammered out.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in his literary thanks to the Minister. I cannot compete with that. I am from the Walter Scott area rather than Shakespeare country, but I am certain that, during the three-and-a-quarter years of the passage of the Bill, the Minister and Ministers probably felt that many of our amendments and much of what we were saying were “Much Ado About Nothing”, much as we thought that the Government were probably acting as a “Comedy of Errors”. But the Minister will now probably think that “All’s Well That Ends Well” with the passage of the Bill, and I congratulate him on putting this legislation on the statute book.
In response to his maiden speech, I indicated that it was the third time that the Bill had been presented to the House and that I was certain that it would be third time lucky for him, and it has been. However, I do not think there has been much luck associated with the Bill. I congratulate him on taking it through in a conscientious, gracious and inclusive manner. All those qualities were indicated in his first correspondence with me when he became a Minister when he set out how he wished to operate. He has demonstrated that to the letter, and I am very grateful, as are my noble friends Lord Fox, Lady Kramer, Lady Bowles, Lord Bruce, Lady Bakewell and others on these Benches who have been able to benefit from the Minister’s time and the manner in which he has listened our concerns and thoughts and responded in a timely manner. In that, he has been very ably assisted by his private office, which I also commend, as well as the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, who has been an extremely patient Whip on the Bench on many of these proceedings.
I had a look at the Parliament web page for the Bill. One of the signs of how conscientious Ministers are is what the website terms “Will write letters”. The noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, has written 23 letters during the passage of the Bill through the Lords, which demonstrates two things: first, that across all the Benches there has been great interest in trade policy in a post-Brexit scenario; and, secondly, that he has tried to respond to all the points that have been raised. For the record, I say that not all the 23 will-write letters were to me, but I am sure that the Minister probably felt at certain stages that the contributions from me and these Benches were perhaps excessive. My colleagues and I care very deeply about having a 21st century trade policy to meet the needs of the 21st century. During ping-pong, we will endeavour to continue to make the case.
The Minister said that he commends those on the other Benches on getting the Bill to where it is today. I hope he does not mind me saying that if the Bill becomes an Act as it is today we would be very happy, but we are not yet at the very final stage—like some of the trade agreements that have not yet been ratified after the end of the transition period, this involves a degree of provisional application. I hope the House of Commons will see the sense in the cross-party amendments that this House has passed so that the Bill as it is today will continue to be strong.
I will say one final thing about the Minister. I commend him on putting through this legislation while also having significant health problems with his eye. I have never known a Minister who has seamlessly managed to have major eye surgery—and we commend the NHS and Moorfields Eye Hospital on restoring his eyesight—while taking this legislation through without pause. No one would have noticed any difference, so I commend him on doing it.
I hope that, during ping-pong, we will be able to protect some of the elements of the amendments that we passed during the scrutiny, which I think most colleagues consider to have been thorough, conscientious and effective.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, as we near the end of lengthy deliberations over a long period, during which we have finally managed to leave the European Union, and now have to start to combat, economically, the greatest worldwide pandemic in many centuries—I do not think that is an exaggeration—I want to make a short contribution imploring the Government not to follow a tendency inbuilt in all Governments. When legislation has taken so long to put together and eventually receives Royal Assent, I implore them not to sit back and leave others to do the next stage. We in this country are good at appointing trade envoys to go out across the world but we are not nearly as good at taking the message inwards. If one thing strikes me more than anything else about what is needed with the freedoms that come from leaving the European Union and the complexities of recovering, at some stage, the economy post the Covid pandemic, it is that we will need to engender two things that will not come automatically.
The first is an entrepreneurial spirit. It is easy for politicians to talk about that but, when industrialists, business people and workers have been anchored down for so long with the pandemic and will continue to be in some way for some considerable time, entrepreneurship will not simply emerge quickly from nowhere; it will need encouraging, facilitating and inspiring.
The second thing, as part of that, will be the need for a new social contract, to use an old term in a modern setting, post Brexit. If those who own and work in our businesses are not on the same wavelength, with the same motivations and moving in the same direction, that entrepreneurship will be severely hampered. The innovations will be concepts rather than delivered goods and services that boost our economy. The Government need to decide whether we will be an economy that trades cheap and cheerful or as the best in the world. That choice will be made in the next 18 months and will last for many years to come.
I implore the Government to go inward into our industrial heartlands of the past, taking the message of this Trade Bill about what trade means and re-establishing that social contract—the message that we are all in this together. The UK, with its new freedoms, will prosper and thrive if we do so on the basis of being the best, rather than the cheap and cheerful back end of the industrial world, I hope that Ministers from this department will take the lead in doing that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I pay fulsome tribute to my noble friends Lord Grimstone of Boscobel and Lord Younger of Leckie for their stewardship of the Bill, bringing us to where we are today. I join my noble friends in also paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Fairhead for originating the original Bill, to which I also contributed.
My noble friend has alluded to all those who contributed, and I join him in thanking all the officials who have helped us—notably, his private secretary and the Bill team. I also thank the doorkeepers, the attendants and those in the Printed Paper Office and the Public Bill Office, who have worked exceptionally hard on the Bill. I thank, too, the catering staff, who have ensured that, while we have been meeting in this House, we have been well fed and watered.
My noble friend alluded to the fact that the Bill has changed during its passage in this House before it proceeds to the ping-pong stage. I echo the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, that the food standards agencies of the four nations will be asked to advise on human health. There is a concern over how they will report on and feed the human health aspects into the other two reports to which my noble friend referred.
I also extend warm thanks to the Law Society of Scotland, which briefed me at various stages of the Bill to ensure that Scottish concerns—particularly those of the legal profession in Scotland—were heeded.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to “Hamlet”. Obviously that was set in Denmark, with the Prince of Denmark being the main player. I end by thanking my noble friend Lord Grimstone, who has emerged as the swan, with the rest of us being the ugly ducklings. He has had an aura of calm at every stage of the Bill, and I am sure that he has been serenely paddling underneath. I thank him and congratulate him and other noble friends on getting the Bill to this stage today. I look forward to the ping-pong stage to see how the unfinished business, particularly relating to the CRaG procedures and the other domestic legislation and the regulations they put in place, plays out.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of myself and everybody else referred to, I thank noble Lords for their most generous comments. I constantly stand in awe of the expertise in our House and the courtesies with which views are expressed. With a sense of relief, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Mental Health Act Reform
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the whole House will welcome this White Paper. The overhaul of the Mental Health Act has been long awaited. It is also to be welcomed that the Government have accepted the majority of the recommendations from Sir Simon Wessely’s independent review of the Mental Health Act. As Sir Simon Wessely’s report highlighted, there is a great need for patients to be heard, for their choices to be respected and for them to be supported to get better in the least restrictive way.
Although legislative changes are important, the best way to prevent people being detained under the Mental Health Act is to prevent them reaching a crisis point in the first place. This means bringing reality to equality for mental health, bringing in investment and training, and introducing a culture change in the NHS.
My first question is whether the investment detailed in the long-term plan will be sufficient to achieve that. Many of the organisations which have championed mental health doubt that it will. Surely we will require greater investment to implement the proposals of the White Paper.
The Government accept almost all the review’s recommendations on advocacy and tribunals, including the funding that will be required to implement them. These are key reforms affecting people’s liberty and will play an important part in making other improvements to people’s rights effective. Can the Minister assure us that planned reforms will be fully funded?
The independent review was published over two years ago. Since then, the murder of George Floyd and the growth of the Black Lives Matter movement have brought the impact of structural racism into greater focus. Among the five broad ethnic groups, the known rate of detention for the black or black British group—321.7 detentions per 100,000 of the population—was over four times that of the white group, which was 73.4 per 100,000. Men and women from African-Caribbean communities in the UK have higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide risk and are more likely to be diagnosed as schizophrenic. Does the White Paper go far enough in tackling the racial disparities within our use of the Mental Health Act? It is very much to be welcomed that the Secretary of State has announced the new patient and carer race equality framework, which was recommended by Sir Simon Wessely. Can the Minister tell us the timetable?
On health inequalities in general, children from the poorest 20% of households are four times as likely to have serious mental health difficulties by the age of 11 as those from the wealthiest 20%. Half of LGBT people—52%—have experienced depression in the last year. One in eight LGBT people aged between 18 and 24 say that they have attempted to take their own life in the last year. Almost half of trans people have thought of taking their own life in the last year, and 31% per cent of LGB people who are not trans say the same. People living in the most deprived areas are more likely to be referred to an IAPT service by their GP but are substantially less likely to receive a complete course of treatment or make a successful recovery. Long-term funding decisions will be needed in the next spending review. What will they look like? Will the Government make a long-term commitment to invest when this is required?
I am sure we all welcome the aim to improve how people with learning difficulties and autism are treated under the Act. Will there be limitations to the scope for detention where their needs are due to learning disabilities or autism alone? Do the Government accept all the review’s recommendations on advocacy and tribunals, including the funding that will be required to implement them? These are key reforms affecting people’s liberty and will play an important part in making other improvements come about.
The emergency legislation of the Coronavirus Act 2020 represented a concerning reduction in patient rights and safeguards. While we understood the reasons for their initial introduction, I am sure that everyone is glad that they were never enacted and pleased that they have now been dropped. However, Covid-19 will prove a defining moment for the way in which we discuss and protect our mental health. A rising tide of people who have not previously experienced mental health problems now find themselves in that position. For a lot of people, the pandemic has seen a shift from merely “struggling” to becoming clinically unwell. Funding and reform will be needed more than ever.
Finally, can the Minister tell us when the legislative programme will commence? Is there to be a joint pre-legislative scrutiny committee? I believe the Minister’s right honourable friend the Secretary of State suggested that that might be the case. That would be very welcome and I hope that it will start very soon indeed. When, finally, will we see the draft Bill?
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, there is much to be welcomed in this White Paper, for which we have waited so long. I am pleased to see patient voices being put front and centre of plans and proposals to address the current shocking disparities in the rates of detention of people from black and minority-ethnic backgrounds. However, the issues that were highlighted in the Wessely review two years ago have continued to scar the lives of too many people during the extremely long gestation period of this White Paper.
The original legislation is 40 years old now and out of date. It is shocking, frankly, that it has taken us so long to amend archaic processes, such as an individual’s father automatically being their advocate in a mental health crisis, whatever the nature of the relationship or preference of the individual patient.
I understand the importance of getting the details right. However, I was concerned by the lack of urgency shown by the Secretary of State when responding to questions from MPs on the Statement last week. Why do we have to wait another year before the legislation can even begin? Can the Minister give us a concrete timeframe for the further consultation? What is the timetable for taking forward the non-legislative reforms in the Wessely review, not least to achieve wholesale cultural change in mental health services?
I am similarly very concerned about workforce issues facing this sector. Many of the workforce aims laid out in the NHS Long Term Plan are not on track to be met, with 12% vacancy levels in many mental health services. Between 2016 and 2019, demand for services increased by over 20%—and that takes no account of the exponential growth in mental health problems during the pandemic. Recent forecasts suggest, for example, that only 71 additional consultant psychiatrists will be added to the NHS workforce by 2023-24, against a requirement of more than 1,000 to deliver the long-term plan. What measures are the Government taking to address the additional workforce requirements of reforming the Mental Health Act?
We then come to the issue of funding. The short-term injection of £500 million is, of course, welcome, but it is sustainable and long-term investment in services—covering the full spectrum from preventive to crisis care—that we so badly need. We need a comprehensive plan for funding all existing and new mental health services, rather than one-off injections of short-term funding. Above all, this means investment in community services. In a survey of Royal College of Psychiatrists members, insufficient access to community health services was cited as the greatest cause of increases in formal admissions. The best way to prevent people being detained under the Mental Health Act is to prevent them reaching crisis point in the first place.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I am deeply worried about the impact of the pandemic on the nation’s mental health. In October last year, the Centre for Mental Health estimated approximately 10 million extra people with mental health needs due to the pandemic—a staggering figure. While it is understandable that we have been focusing on the physical threat of the pandemic and protecting our acute services, when will the Government come forward with proposals to address what some are now calling a mental health emergency?
It is an unpalatable fact that black people are currently 10 times more likely to be placed on a community treatment order. In these situations, patient voices become even more important, ensuring that culturally appropriate services can be provided. The patient and carer race equality framework is a good start; I look forward to hearing more on this issue. I note that cultural advocates are currently being recruited, but can the Minister confirm how many patient and carer advocates will be involved in both the advancing mental health equalities task force and the patient and carer race equality framework steering group? Also, why are the Government not proposing to legislate for a CTO to have a maximum duration of two years or to allow tribunals to change the conditions imposed on an individual by the order, as recommended by the Wessely review?
I end by returning to the issue of prevention. The courses of action covered by this legislation represent the worst-case scenarios for individuals experiencing severe mental health problems. We have so much evidence telling us that investments in preventive measures are highly cost-effective interventions and avoid the trauma of crisis scenarios for patients. While we debate this White Paper, it is vital that we do not lose sight of the bigger picture.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for their incredibly perceptive, thoughtful and detailed questions, some of which I am afraid are beyond the brief in front of me. I reassure them, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, that I will write with detailed answers to some of their more perceptive and searching questions.
We are all enormously grateful to Sir Simon Wessely for his thoughtful, persuasive and thorough report. It has taken some time to work on it, but now that it has arrived we will act on it. I reassure the House that it is an enormous priority.
I reassure both noble Baronesses that funding is absolutely in place for mental health. If I may briefly run through that, an extra £2.3 billion a year for mental health services is committed by 2023-24. Some £500 million in mental health investment in the NHS workforce was announced in the spending review, and it will go towards addressing waiting times for mental health services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, referred to the challenge of recruiting psychiatrists. As she knows, that area is extremely challenging. The employment brand of mental health services is not as strong as it is for, say, surgeons, but we have done an enormous amount through HR and the people plan to find new ways of attracting people to rewarding and challenging roles in psychiatry, and those investments are beginning to pay off.
We have invested more than £10 million this year in supporting national and local mental health charities to continue their vital work in supporting people across the country. I will move on to the mental health effects of the pandemic in a second. We have invested £8 million in the Wellbeing for Education Return programme, which will provide schools and colleges all over England with the knowledge and resources to support children and young people, teachers and parents. We have announced more than £400 million over the next four years to refurbish mental health facilities to get rid of dormitories in such facilities across 40 trusts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, asked me about urgency and whether the Government were truly committed to moving quickly. I reassure her that money has already been announced and plans are in place to address some of Sir Simon’s most urgent recommendations.
Both noble Baronesses asked about the timetable for legislation. I reassure them that the consultation began last Wednesday; it is a 14-week consultation and we have committed to responding to it this year. If I may advertise to noble Lords, this is a terrific opportunity for all those with views on mental health to contribute to that important engagement. It is our plan to publish the Bill next year on the back of that consultation and for legislative scrutiny to take place next year. The question of whether that will be joint legislative scrutiny is not clear to me right now, but I undertake to both noble Baronesses to inquire and press the case for joint scrutiny when I return to the department. I shall write to both of them accordingly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, raised the impact of the racial dimension highlighted in the report. The numbers in Sir Simon’s report are incredibly striking and it is crystal clear that this is an issue that we absolutely have to deal with. Will we go far enough? Yes, indeed we will. The framework recommended is extremely powerful and we are already putting it into place. We have learned an enormous amount from the report. The ability for those with mental health issues to nominate their own advocate is an extremely powerful innovation that I think will have a big impact on this issue, but we still have further to go. We are engaged with those who are both representative and expert in this area to ensure that we are challenged to go far enough.
Likewise, on learning difficulties and autism, noble Lords will remember that we have had powerful and moving debates in this Chamber in the last few months on that very issue. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that we note Sir Simon’s recommendation in his report for a 28-day cap on the detention of those with learning difficulties and autism. It is just not good enough for those with learning difficulties and autism to be detained under a Mental Health Act restraint for an interminable period. That point is thoroughly recognised, and the report’s recommendations are extremely well made.
On the question of the pandemic, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, put it extremely well: there has been a shift in many people’s response to the pressures and the isolation of lockdown, from being stressed and anxious to having genuine clinical challenges. The full effects of that have not worked their way through the system so it is difficult to get a nuanced and complete view from the numbers today, but we are very much on the balls of our feet to understand and react to the pressures
If I may draw out one issue, young girls seem to be a demographic who have particularly felt the loneliness, anxiety and uncertainty around the pandemic and lockdown. We are particularly concerned to ensure that support goes to families and individuals who present clinical mental health issues as a result of the pandemic.
On the other, very detailed questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, I undertake to answer them in writing at the earliest possible opportunity.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the 20 minutes allocated to Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of the 15 remaining speakers on the list.
Baroness Hollins (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the focus of the consultation and the White Paper on prevention, along with the new duties on local commissioners to ensure that they understand and monitor the risk of crisis for individuals—for example, when a family member dies—and to ensure an adequate supply of community services for people with learning disabilities and autistic people as an alternative to admission. Does the Minister agree that for these duties to have teeth, the descriptor “adequate” will have to be defined and subject to legal enforcement?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness asks a very perceptive question. I pay tribute to her work in this area and the challenge and scrutiny that she has given to the Government, which have helped lead to the position we are in at the moment. This is exactly the kind of area that we will be presenting for consultation, and I very much look forward to the noble Baroness’s contribution to that consultation.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]
I welcome the White Paper, which represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity. Allied to that, can the Minister confirm whether the Government will commit to prioritising permanent and immediate mental health support for all our NHS front-line workers in ICU, in the emergency room and beyond—immediate lifelong prioritised mental health support for all those who have given so much support and continue to give it to all of us through this pandemic?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I live opposite University College Hospital. Every night I hear the ambulances arriving and I think of the staff on the front line working so hard night after night in such difficult circumstances, dealing with people in agony. The mental health of our NHS staff is paramount. Some £50 million has been invested in strengthening mental health support for staff. We have put in place the mental health hotline, practical support, financial advice and specialist bereavement and psychological support. I have no doubt that more could be done but this is very much an area that, as my noble friend rightly points out, is worthy of more investment.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol [V]
My Lords, I join fellow Members in welcoming the Statement and the response to the significant report by Sir Simon Wessely. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, noted and as the Minister commented, the evidence is that minority ethnic individuals are 40% more likely than white Britons to come into contact with mental health services through the criminal justice system. Will the Minister explain how the proposed framework will address the underlying attitudes and practices that led to this statistic, which at best are described as a failure to understand the culture and at worst are a reflection of racist views?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is right to allude to the importance of culture. No amount of bureaucracy or guideline-writing can ultimately address the basic attitudes, backgrounds and mental starting point of those involved in these decisions. I reassure the House that at the moment we are processing the people plan, which addresses at a fundamental level the hierarchy, racism, homophobia and misogyny sometimes found in some parts of the NHS. We are acutely aware that culture is fundamental to the safe provision of services to patients. The framework itself is not wholly directed at culture, but it will be supplemented by these kinds of reforms.
Lord Winston (Lab) [V]
I congratulate the Government on getting Sir Simon Wessely to help them bring about this much-needed reform and will welcome seeing how it progresses in the next year. I want to draw attention to one of the problems about sectioning patients. Two members of my team at different times have been sectioned; both were psychotic and severely depressed at the time. One phoned me at 5 am to say that people had come for her; it was clear that this was highly scary and very damaging. The other patient was left in a police station after being found on a moor for many hours before eventually a bed could be found, miles from where she lived or where anybody could visit her. Also, the premises available for such patients when they have been sectioned seem quite inadequate. The Minister has mentioned the dormitory system, but when I visited both those women, I felt that I would be very depressed myself if I were in those circumstances. We need to do much more to make premises more homely if we are to be more successful in encouraging a return to normal health.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is entirely right: when people experience a mental health crisis, they should be treated with consideration. Unfortunately, the police are sometimes at the front line of dealing with those with mental health difficulties. It is a stretch for them, and they should have the right training to be able to deal with a situation sensitively and they should have the right premises to be able to give people safe and secure environments. It is at the outer limits of their professional responsibilities, but we are doing as much as we can to put the training in place.
I remember from my own personal experience, when my father and my mother were sectioned, the consideration and thoughtfulness of those involved in both those processes. It is not all bad, but I take the noble Lord’s point.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the White Paper and the commitment to deliver person-centred care. Many health and social care professionals will need to change the way they work, which is both necessary and welcome. What is the national budget for training over the next five years and how soon will those being treated for mental health conditions expect to notice a difference in their care?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is entirely right: the training is critical in this area; it could not be more important. We have invested £500 million in mental health services and support for the NHS workforce to address this. I cannot give her the precise number that she has asked for, but I shall write to her if I can track it down. However, we recognise the urgency of the situation and we hope that the impact of this money will be felt as quickly as possible.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I too welcome this White Paper based on the Wessely review. However, without real increases in spending on mental health, the anticipated Bill will not be able to fulfil its potential. I was not reassured by the Minister’s comments on funding.
If we become physically ill, we can expect to be treated within a reasonable timeframe; that is not so in mental health. If the Minister agrees that that is not acceptable, will he challenge the £2.3 billion figure, which, as I am sure he knows, will do nothing to rectify the ongoing imbalance and will leave people detained in hospital because of the absence of adequate community services?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that community support for those with mental health challenges is critical—we are supporting community health in addition—but I slightly disagree that the £2.3 billion will make no difference. It is a phenomenal commitment and it demonstrates that the Government have recognised that mental health services have lagged behind primary care and physical services, as the noble Baroness rightly points out, and we are working hard to make up the difference.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con) [V]
My Lords, I too welcome the White Paper and in particular one of its key aims, which is to address the disparities that exist in relation to those from black, Asian and minority-ethnic backgrounds. The data from the race disparity audit played an important role in revealing those disparities. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that the Government will continue to utilise the work of the Race Disparity Unit as we continue on the path towards the first new mental health Bill in 30 years?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I have met the Race Disparity Unit and can share my noble friend’s testimony to the critical work that it does. The statistical collections managed by NHS Digital have shone a light on the extent of the disparities illustrated by Sir Simon, most notably that black people are more than 10 times more likely to be made subject to a community treatment order after discharge from hospital. That is an astounding number. We are determined to take action; we will introduce a new patient and carer race equality framework which will support NHS mental health care providers to work with their local communities to improve the ways in which patients access and experience treatment. The Race Disparity Unit will continue to play a key role.
Lord Bradley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, while I welcome the White Paper, it is unlikely that the legislation will be enacted until 2023. Many reforms can be made before that date to implement some of Sir Simon’s recommendations, including the development of community facilities to support people with learning disabilities and autism so as to hugely reduce the use of in-patient beds and, crucially, alternative provision to finally stop the use of prison and police custody suites as places of safety. I therefore press the Minister again to assure the House that sufficient capital funds are available within the NHS long-term plan to implement such key recommendations.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is 100% right: we can definitely start work on the recommendations of the report. As I said earlier, we have already done so: committing £400 million to end dormitories in 40 trusts. That sort of parallel processing can be done for other elements of the report. The consultation began last week, which shows our determination to get moving. Some recommendations of the report are spellbindingly obvious; we will work on them immediately. The role of police suites in safe refuge, cited by the noble Lord and by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is exactly such an example.
Baroness Barker (LD) [V]
My Lords, this is yet another NHS document which makes not a single mention of the needs of LGBT people. The Statement is in effect an admission that the Mental Health Act 2007 was deeply flawed and, as a result, thousands of people have been subject to wrongful treatment. Will the Government act now to stop the abuse of community treatment orders and other elements of that Act that have led to the position that is so accurately described by Sir Simon Wessely?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I confess that the noble Baroness has me on the hop there, because I had not noticed that LGBT issues are not mentioned in Sir Simon’s report. I share the noble Baroness’s surprise about that. Let me return to the document and I will address her point in correspondence.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, Sir Simon found excessive use of restrictive practices in mental health institutions. Many of us will be familiar with the appalling case of Bethany, the autistic teenager who spent three years in what can be described only as a cell, in an appallingly inhumane regime that kept her locked up in solitary confinement and with no physical contact with other people. Only when her father went to court did she escape, and she is now living happily in an open-plan institution. Can the Minister assure us that such treatment will never be condoned again? We cannot wait for legislation on this.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I certainly do not condone that treatment in any circumstances, but I acknowledge the noble Baroness’s point: there have been some instances in the past—reasonably rare but consistent—where those with autism and learning difficulties have been subject to the most inappropriate regimes and where a completely different type of support, therapy and accommodation from the kind found in mental health institutions was needed. The campaign to which the noble Baroness alluded is entirely right and we are moving quickly to address those points.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the White Paper is certainly to be welcomed, as there is much to be done. The number of people being detained in hospital under the current Mental Health Act has increased over the past few years. One reason is the lack of resources to provide the support needed in the community and respite care. While we are told that there has been investment, the resources often do not reach hard-pressed mental health trusts. More resources will be needed, not only to grow the workforce but for the workforce to receive education and training in the values and practices needed to deliver the radical changes envisaged in this review. We should also ensure that the workforce better reflects the communities it serves. Again, while I welcome the promise of further investment in mental health services, will the Minister give a commitment that this will be new money and that it will reach mental health trusts, to provide the workforce growth, and Health Education England, to provide the workforce training essential for delivering the aims of the White Paper?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is right; the numbers are inappropriate. Fifty-one thousand detentions under the Act in 2019-20 seems far too many. Detentions under the Act rose by 40% in the 10 years to 2015, and we thought of this Act to try to address that injustice. The £2.3 billion is new money, and it will make a huge impact on the mental health trusts he describes.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, sadly, I have personal experience of having to invoke the Mental Health Act. It is a dreadful process. It concerns me that one of the reforms proposed is to tighten the criteria for civil patients’ detention by raising the threshold for risk of harm. Does the Minister agree that this reform risks increasing harm to the person who is ill and their family?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, that is not the intention of the report, and I confess to struggling to understand how that would be the case. I would welcome correspondence from the noble Baroness to detail her concerns so that they can be taken on board.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon. No? Lord Boateng.
Lord Boateng (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister is to be commended for calling out racism, because that is what many black and south Asian patients experience. Will he ensure that commissioners in the field, with this new money given to them, fund local, community-based advocacy groups? And will he ensure the health review tribunals reflect the communities on which they are adjudicating and recognise racism in the mental health service?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the role of health review tribunals is critical, and more needs to be done to ensure that they reflect the communities they represent. I am not sure it is the role of mental health trusts to finance local advocacy groups, but he is right that they make a difference and hold the system to account. The broader issue of racism in the NHS is a cross-institutional challenge that must be addressed by all parts of the NHS, and we are committed to doing so.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I warmly welcome the Government’s proposals. A key area of concern for me is the length of time people spend waiting in emergency departments for assessment, even after being referred by their GPs. Will the Government guarantee, as others have mentioned, that sufficient resources in staffing will be made available to ensure that these warmly welcomed reforms are carried out and the quality of care increases?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord only by saying we have put an ambitious report on the table. We will follow it up with a detailed consultation process that will engage Parliament in due course and lead to an ambitious Bill. That will be backed by substantial financial investment; thereby, we hope to make a major impact on the issues he describes, which I recognise and acknowledge.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, Sir Simon’s report makes no reference to international best practice and gives no internationally comparative statistics—for example, on sectioning. I gave the noble Lord notice of a question I would like to ask about what international best practice the Government have in mind. Will he be able to make available to me, perhaps in correspondence, internationally comparative, population-adjusted statistics for sectioning? This will be important for putting the reforms he suggested in context before we proceed to legislation.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord for sending me his question, but I am embarrassed to say that I did not receive the correspondence. I would love to have the figures to hand, but I will write to him with details. If I could gently push back: this is not an easy issue to make international comparisons on, and we are not necessarily led by what other countries do in this area. We have to own this problem ourselves and find an approach that fits the NHS and people in Britain, and we have to be accountable to the people of Britain for our performance.
Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill
Monday 18th January 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Act 2021 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak to both Bills on the Order Paper. I declare my relevant interests in commercial and residential property, as set out in the register.
Both Bills both provide targeted relief for ratepayers and support the reform of the business rates system, delivering on this Government’s commitments. I am pleased that, with the agreement of noble Lords on the Benches opposite, I am able to bring both Bills to this House today in a joint session. I will first set out the purpose of the lists—or revaluation—Bill, before moving on to the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill. I look forward to hearing the views of this House on both.
I know that as we tentatively begin to consider what our local economies will look like on the other side of the pandemic, it is important to recognise the concerns about the current business rates system held by the ratepayers who make up our commercial areas and high streets. It is with this in mind that I move the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No.2) Bill. The Bill delivers on the Government’s commitment to set in law the date of the next business rates revaluation at 1 April 2023. This will ensure that future rates bills will better reflect the exceptional impact of the pandemic on the commercial property market.
The basis of a property’s business rates bill is its rateable value, which broadly represents its annual rental value. This is assessed independently of Ministers by the Valuation Office Agency. The agency has carried out regular revaluations of rateable values since the introduction of business rates in their current form in 1990. These ensure that the responsibility of paying the rates, which fund important local services, is fairly distributed among all ratepayers.
At each revaluation, all rateable values are based on the rental property market at a set date. This is known as the valuation date. A revaluation is an extensive exercise requiring many months of collecting and analysing rents, then the preparation of 2 million valuations. To give the Valuation Office Agency time to prepare these valuations, the valuation date is set two years before the revaluation.
Prior to the pandemic, we had wanted the next revaluation to take effect from 1 April 2021 and reflect a valuation date of 1 April 2019, but the impact of the pandemic on the commercial property market since 2019 means it would now not be right to continue with the 2021 revaluation. I hope noble Lords will agree that we could not have a revaluation that resulted in bills which did not reflect the impact of the pandemic. The Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No.2) Bill therefore sets the date for the implementation of the next revaluation in England at Wales at 1 April 2023. This revaluation will be based on rents at 1 April 2021, a date which has already been set in secondary legislation.
The Bill will also make a change to when the Valuation Office Agency must publish draft rateable values to support the smooth transition of the revaluation. This date will change from no later than 30 September to no later than 31 December in the preceding year. Doing this will allow us to align the publication of these draft rateable values with the timing of decisions relating to the multipliers and transitional arrangements—decisions which are normally made at the autumn fiscal event. Ratepayers will still be given several months’ notice of their bills for the following April onwards.
While policy on business rates is a devolved area, the Welsh Government have agreed that the application of the Bill should include Wales. This means that, as in England, the next revaluation in Wales will be implemented on 1 April 2023 and the latest date for publication of Welsh draft rateable values will also be changed to 31 December. Entirely different legislation applied in Scotland, where the Scottish Government have also committed to implementing their next revaluation on 1 April 2023, and Northern Ireland, which has only recently implemented a revaluation on 1 April 2020. There is therefore recognition across this country that moving the date of the next business rates revaluation to better reflect the impact of the pandemic is the right thing to do. I hope that this agreement is also shared in this House.
As I have said, this is an exceptional step, taken in exceptional circumstances, and the Government remain committed to implementing more frequent business rates revaluations. The fundamental review of business rates will look at the frequency of revaluations alongside how they are carried out. It will report on these aspects of the business rates system in the spring. However, this is a step we can now take to provide greater fairness and certainty to ratepayers.
Turning to the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill, this Government recognise the importance of public lavatories. That is why at Budget 2020 the Government recommitted to introducing a business rates relief for public lavatories. This small but important Bill delivers on that commitment and responds to calls from local councils. It would ensure that eligible public lavatories receive a 100% reduction on their business rates. It will cut the operating costs of public lavatories, particularly in cases where rates bills are a significant proportion of their running costs, and help to keep these important facilities open. The relief will apply to eligible public lavatories run by the private and public sectors, including those operated by parish councils.
Even now, when we are minimising the use of our public spaces and of public transport, the availability of appropriate toilet facilities to those essential workers who continue to keep our country running, such as taxi and delivery drivers, is of particular importance. Given how vital these facilities are, it is understandable that there has been public concern around the potential reduction in the number of available lavatories. I know that the sentiments of these concerns have previously been reflected in the contributions of many noble Lords in this House. Removing the business rates on public lavatories will make it easier for them to remain open. Furthermore, to ensure this measure is implemented quickly and support provided as soon as it can be, I am pleased to say that, subject to Royal Assent, this Bill will apply retrospectively from April 2020. This means that, for eligible properties, the relief will be backdated to the start of the financial year.
I hope your Lordships will allow me the opportunity to pay tribute to councils, and to the National Association of Local Councils, for their support for this Bill. Let me also thank the private organisations and businesses which, through their launching of innovative local initiatives, have formed the vanguard in the campaign to extend the provision of public lavatories. In particular, I would highlight the community toilets scheme, which has now been adopted by local authorities across the country. This scheme allows the public, in less restricted times, to make use of toilets provided by local businesses and councils without making a purchase. I would also highlight the support that the British Toilet Association has given to this scheme through its “Use Our Loos” campaign and the launch of the Great British Public Toilet Map.
Of course, for people who cannot use standard accessible toilets, it is about not just the number of facilities available but ensuring that the right facilities are available. This is why the Government have delivered in providing more “Changing Places” lavatories to ensure that everyone in this country, including those with special lavatory requirements, can be confident in using our public spaces. At the Budget last year, the Chancellor announced £30 million to fund “Changing Places” toilets in existing buildings and accelerate the provision of these vital facilities. We will announce the details of this funding in due course. The ability of people to enjoy our public spaces, and to support our economy, should not be determined by their disability or personal circumstances. I am proud of the commitments that the Government have already made on this important issue. I hope that the measures included in the public lavatories Bill will help to give people the confidence to get out in our public spaces and support our high streets, once it is safe to do so.
The provisions of both Bills before this House today act only to supplement the extensive support that the Government have already provided to ratepayers since the start of the coronavirus pandemic. In response to it, we have ensured that eligible businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors will pay no business rates at all in 2020-21. This is a relief worth £10 billion which, when considered alongside small business rate relief, means that more than half of ratepayers in England are paying no rates at all this year. Both Bills before the House form part of the critical package of support for ratepayers and reform to the system that this Government have committed to delivering. I commend both Bills to the House.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I want to focus my remarks on the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill. I was unable to speak on this Bill when it was first introduced—what seems like a lifetime ago—and I welcome it now with a particular interest.
In 2008, when I was standing where the Minister is now, I was pleased to introduce the then first-ever guidance on public lavatories, designed to prevent further closures, improve access and quality and, in general, to make the point that public lavatories should not be a national joke—let alone a national disgrace—but a local asset, which local people can rely on and take as much pride in as any other local provision. The case made then is the same as made now eloquently by the Minister: that everyone of all ages and conditions should be able to count as of right and dignity on there being a decent public loo accessible. We wanted to expand access and encouraged private partners in retail to consider how they could make their loos more accessible. As the Minister has reflected, a great deal of good practice has been inspired at local level: for example, by encouraging the use of S106 to build more loos and in notable innovations and changes.
However, that was not a national strategy, which was at that time beyond my reach. Sadly, however welcome, neither is this Bill a national strategy. That alone would ensure that there were minimum mandatory standards of access, provision and quality tailored for special needs, particularly those of the elderly and disabled, and the many people who suffer from medical conditions and require frequent access. This is therefore a reactive Bill; it is long overdue and reflects decades of pressure from the British Toilet Association. It has worked with successive Governments to achieve it and we should be very grateful to it, but I think it would agree that a national strategy would be welcome now.
The statistics suggest that in the last decade almost 700 loos have been closed, accelerated, I have no doubt, by the vast cuts in local authority spending. In addition to the loss of public lavatories, we also need to face—as sadly the Bill does not—the degraded and frankly disgusting nature of so many of them. Even in the most beautiful towns such as the one I live in, Lewes in Sussex, our local loos are frankly a disgrace. Other local authorities—Ceredigion in Wales is an exemplar—take huge and award-winning pride in what they offer their local community and tourists. If it can make it an important priority, every local authority can. I should add here how glad I am that Wales is also sharing in this measure.
As with everything else, Covid has exposed the importance of things we took for granted. The awful impacts following closures of public loos revealed that only too graphically. We have also become more aware, as shops and buildings close, that public loos become the only option for people who are still working in the outdoors.
This Bill, which provides business rates relief, is long overdue. It is a modest proposal but it has, in effect, removed what was, frankly, always a historic anomaly. The exam question is: what sort and what scale of difference will it make? In principle, it will certainly incentivise better local provision and free up resources, and it might stop the closure of some local lavatories. However, it is impossible to tell whether it will have a real impact, given that current estimates are that there is a black hole of about £10 billion in local authority finance. It goes without saying that the funding deficit makes it simply impossible for local authorities to provide the services which are so badly needed. As we approach post-Covid better community building, that has to be at the heart of it.
The Bill can be improved in this House. For example, I would like to see more emphasis on how loos in public buildings such as museums, town halls and libraries could be involved. However, I have some real questions for the Minister, primarily regarding how far this small amount of extra funding will go to address the extent of the loss of provisions. My questions are these. What estimates have been made for the public loos that will now be saved? How will this be monitored or reviewed? What guarantees are there that this money will be spent on what it is intended for, rather than lost in the other huge demands of local authorities? What incentives are there that this money will also provide for caring for public loos and providing extra facilities, such as changing places? Finally, does the Minister agree with me that the essential thing now is to build on this Bill, and to recognise that public health—as we know acutely at the moment—needs constant vigilance and constant investment, and local agency and partnership? I ask our Minister to take the lead in pressing for a national strategy.
Public lavatories were a sign of public dignity, of high standards and municipal confidence. They were constructed with care and beauty by our Victorian ancestors. They should also be a fundamental part not only of our public health strategy but of our strategies for equality, ensuring that children can be cared for and comforted when they are out and that parents do not have to search in desperation for a friendly pub, and ensuring that people of all ages, and people with medical conditions, are free to leave their homes without a battle plan for finding a loo and living constantly in fear of embarrassment. This is not a trivial or facetious issue. It is far more profound than we give it credit for because, to take it seriously, if we do not prioritise it, it is discriminatory and dangerous. I really hope that the expectations held for this small but important Bill are fulfilled.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
First, I want to agree with the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, on the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill. I welcome the decision to combine the two Bills for Second Reading, given that there has already been a Second Reading of the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill. However, it is also appropriate to consider the two Bills separately as they progress through the House, because they cover different issues.
I shall not say much about the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill, as other colleagues on my Benches will cover those issues fully. From my perspective, I welcome the Bill and it is right that the Government have agreed to backdate its implementation to April 2020.
I want to speak on business rates and the need for urgent reform of the system. In his introduction, I think I heard the Minister say on the review of business rates that the Government will be reporting in the spring. I had assumed that the Budget at the beginning of March might be the appropriate time for that to be announced, but it sounds now as though it might actually be early summer. I would be grateful if, when he responds to the Second Reading, the Minister might clarify that.
I accept that a delay in revaluation to 2023 is inevitable, given the coronavirus pandemic. However, revaluation must ensure that local government does not end up being underresourced and that councils are enabled to widen their sources of income. Revaluation, when it comes, will be effective only if there is a root and branch reform of the system, so that it is much fairer to high streets and city and town centres, and raises much more from online retail companies and their warehouses. Valuations in much of retail, hospitality and leisure have become very out of date. We should bear in mind that retailers currently pay over one-quarter of business rates across England and Wales.
I hope the Government will avoid the temptation for further temporary fixes to the system. The system was in great difficulty before the Covid-19 pandemic, but it is now broken. One reason for this is that the current system treats companies in the same way, whether they are making a profit or a loss. This is the consequence of levying taxes on the value of a property as opposed to the value of a business itself. This problem can be made more acute by the need of national and local government to raise broadly the same amount each year from business rates, even if turnover and profits of businesses plummet. Another reason is that the current system does not address the lower business rates paid by companies retailing online and based in out-of-town warehouses. Revaluation must take this into account. I have concluded that we should consider the retail sector as a whole and divide up the tax burden differently, so that online retailers pay their fair share of the total tax bill.
There is a lot pressure to move to an annual system of revaluation. I can understand the arguments for that, but, instinctively, I think that three years would be better. It would reduce administration and allow trends to be more certain.
Finally, there is a very strong case for extending the business rates holiday from April this year. In the current year, the Treasury has written off some £10 billion in business rates, fully exempting around 358,000 properties in retail, leisure and hospitality. The case for continuing the current scheme is strong, probably for another full year, although some selective phasing might be appropriate. That said, the Government should be careful not to give a business rates holiday to companies which do not need it. As an example, large supermarkets—whose profit levels have been rising during the pandemic, as evidenced by their recent results—did not need the help they were given in the current year and so were right to pay it back. The Government should not be borrowing money on behalf of the taxpayer to give it to retailers whose profits are rising. That said, smaller high street retailers, including convenience stores, will certainly justify extra help, well into next year.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate these two Bills, which I support. I thank the Minister for an online meeting last week. I refer to my professional involvement with non-domestic ratings, my membership of the RICS and other bodies, and my interests as a vice-president of the LGA and the NALC, and as a business property owner.
My own experiences started in the Inland Revenue valuation office in 1975. At that time, residential and commercial properties shared a common valuation approach based on an assumed rent between a hypothetical landlord and a hypothetical tenant. I observed both the Layfield report and the Lyons report, which looked at local government finance and central government grant. My maiden speech here was on the Local Government Finance Act 1988, enacting the ill-fated community charge and setting domestic and non-domestic systems on different trajectories. I was in private practice when the poll tax was replaced with council tax, or CT, based on bands of capital value as at 1991. Business rates remained rent based. Subsequently, there was a capping on limited CT increases, but original value bandings for England remained. Business rates, by contrast, were subject to inflation-plus annual increments to uniform business rates, with periodic revaluations. This divergence has changed the tax burdens.
Things sharpened up when the Labour Government curtailed empty property relief, but nothing matched the later financial shock of the 2010 revaluation, based as it was on 2008 peak-of-market rents, by which time of course values had fallen, with insolvencies and rent voids soaring. I saw demands for a fairer approach, reliefs and more frequent revaluations grow, and the effects of the Treasury principle of fiscal neutrality meaning that changes could not of themselves adversely affect tax yield. Welcome exemptions and reliefs for the very smallest premises were thus funded by larger ratepayers. I benefit from that.
Transitional relief for large changes in the rates burden balanced gainers and losers, but the way in which downward transition now operates means that, in the example of a shop in Canterbury, the 2021-22 rates bill will still be 80% more than it would have been without the relief. That seems intrinsically unjust. More frequent revaluations would reduce or eliminate the need for transitional relief but lack delivery. Ideally, we should have annual revaluations but, like the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I suspect that that may be impractical, although it is proposed for Scotland. Meanwhile, too many rates bills are still coloured by the never-repeated 2008 rental values.
A surge in rating appeals of course followed the 2010 revaluation—many thousands on that list are still outstanding—in response to which the Government introduced a check, challenge, appeal, or CCA, system. It was designed to weed out frivolous cases and reduce administrative burdens, but it also put significant barriers in the way of genuine cases, perceived by appellants as protecting the Valuation Office Agency, the VOA, from the inevitable results of poorly resourced, researched and compiled valuation lists. Avoidance, needless to say, has become more prevalent.
Criticism continues. Largely because of the inflation-proofed and fiscally protected yield, the uniform business rate has risen to over 50p. Some businesses pay more in business rate than rent; reliefs apart, all pay much more on any measure than their services-hungry residential counterparts or businesses under any comparable European tax. The Minister may well wish to reflect on this legacy. The pandemic measures have been very welcome, but even they do not alter the underlying landscape.
I turn to what I call the “lists Bill”. It puts back the next revaluation to 2023 and cuts to three months the deposit of the rating list before it comes into force. The Minister has said how the antecedent valuation date works, but a 2023 revaluation means a 2021 AVD. Although I am assured that the Valuation Office Agency is confident of the evidence base—despite lockdown, furlough, forced closures, pop-up rent deals and rate holidays—other experts think that market rental evidence this April will be thin and unreliable. For bars, clubs and property valued on fair maintainable trade, current evidence will be largely absent. Delaying the AVD to, say, September or December is possible, but apparently not in contemplation due to VOA operational timeframes. I am not entirely convinced on that but am keeping an open mind.
The reduced three-month list deposit period was originally linked to three-yearly valuations—on which the Bill is silent, so it is a little asymmetric. Checking an assessment and pointing up errors in January is one thing; getting the VOA at a busy time of year to make corrections in time for dispatching rate bills in March is another. Bear in mind that rate demands are payable in full until the rateable value is amended. I note that the LGA says it is altogether too short a lead-in period for its members. So this “lists Bill” has consequences.
On public lavatories, I welcome the overdue and long-promised exemption. I thank the Minister for writing to me last October and for confirming backdating. What the Bill sets out is reasonable and appropriate, but it highlights the need to examine public facility exemptions more generally.
Rental values still afford an excellent market-derived business tax base, but problems with the business rates system remain and, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, major reform is certainly needed. On this, professionals, local government, businesses, the CBI, Revo and trade organisations are united. I commend the Government for commissioning their fundamental review and thank the Minister for his reassurance, but can he confirm that Parliament will have a chance to debate it?
I hope the review will be bold and will look at the overall business rates system and its fairness within local government finance, alongside the appropriateness of exemptions and reliefs and issues of avoidance. I hope that alternative revenue streams, such as those related to online trading and opportunities for locally managed and levied revenues, will be included. It is not before time; critically threatened physical retailing, as well as many investments, pension schemes and jobs may depend on getting this right.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I intend to make only a short intervention today.
Covid-19 has had a massive impact on the sport and recreation sectors. While the arts lobby successfully negotiated a £1.57 billion package of support for the art, culture and heritage sectors as long ago as July 2020, the sports sector has not been so fortunate. Some £300 million in emergency funding was agreed to help sports clubs in England survive the ongoing Covid-19 restrictions during the recent winter. Rugby league, rugby union, horseracing and the lower tiers of national league football were all beneficiaries of the support, but in the world of sport the funding gap exists most prominently—and the pain is most acutely felt—among community sports clubs, local authority sports facilities and the smaller local amateur sports clubs, many of which have been the lifeblood of communities the length and breadth of this country throughout our lifetimes.
During this debate on the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill, I want to draw one item to my noble friend’s attention, in full anticipation that, having heard him respond to my noble friend Lord Botham when he made his impassioned plea on the subject and received such praise from the Front Bench, today in the wider context of post-Covid non-domestic rating policy, his plea and mine will not fall on deaf ears.
Sports clubs in the community provide opportunities for people from all walks of life to have a healthier and more active lifestyle. Non-domestic rate relief pre-Covid had a significant discretionary element. Charities, other not-for-profit bodies and sports clubs could apply for a percentage reduction in the business rates payable on any non-domestic property which was wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes. There were two elements to this reduction and relief: mandatory by law and discretionary—in other words, at the discretion of the council.
If you were a registered charity you were entitled to mandatory charity relief: an 80% discount on the full or transitional amount due. If you ran a community amateur sports club registered with the Inland Revenue, you were also entitled to an 80% mandatory discount on any non-domestic property that was wholly or mainly used for the purposes of the club. However, the rateable values and the cost to the clubs of going through that process—of being at the mercy of some local councils for part of the rates paid—remained a major cost item at a time when many were barely surviving, and those barely surviving have gone through even tougher times now.
I congratulate the Government on the business rates holiday that is in place and on a range of initiatives they have taken, on which my noble friend the Minister has led from the Front Bench in this House. However, the critical issue for the future—I know this is passionately felt by my noble friend in sport, the noble Lord, Lord Addington—is the continued support for sports clubs. My view is that there should be 100% rate relief into the future from the Government for registered community sports clubs. I believe that the time has now come to raise that mandatory element from 80% to 100% and to remove the discretionary element. This should be a mandatory part of the package of measures to help sports and recreational clubs get back on their feet and play a pivotal part in ensuring that the population is healthier and more active as we emerge from Covid-19 and face future challenges.
In summary, I hope that rate relief for community amateur sports clubs will be made compulsory, and I very much hope we will have the opportunity to return to this in future debates. In the meantime, I appreciate the opportunity of raising this important subject in the context of the draft legislation before us.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about the vital importance of sports clubs, and I ask the Minister to look favourably on his proposal.
Although the focus of the non-domestic rating Bill is relatively narrow—to reset the next revaluation of business rates to take account of the pandemic, which of course I welcome—I urge the Minister to get the Secretary of State, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to think big about the future of town centres. Covid has accelerated their decline; it is now a really big crisis, on top of the online shopping phenomenon, which has also been accelerating.
The Government need to act because town centres can become the hub of local community and business life. They have been in the past, and, to some extent, they still are—but this role is rapidly shrivelling due to commercial and online pressures and changing lifestyles, which have been accelerated by the pandemic. I believe that business rates and rents have a crucial role to play here. Of course, there is a variety of complex exemptions, suspensions and reliefs, but it is now necessary to have a much more radical and comprehensive solution to this problem, or town centres will die just as we consider future policy to save them.
My own town centre in Neath is a cosy, pedestrianised area, which is very attractive to shop in, although the shops have been disappearing on all levels. There is an old market building with small stalls dating back to 1837 and renovated in 1904, and a great variety of small artisan shops—you can get your watch fixed there. Most people go into a jeweller’s and are invited to exchange their watch when the battery runs out rather than replace it because it is almost cheaper to buy a new one. This issue of the throwaway society, which is ecologically damaging, of course, can be dealt with if there are people who repair them, as they do in the Neath town centre market. A number of other small businesses and artisans offer that facility.
To keep that kind of vibrancy in town centres, they have to be supported, otherwise it is not viable. The town centre and markets are being undermined by high costs, high rents and business rates. This is not the local council’s fault: it does not have the funding or the legal basis to subsidise. We lost our Crown post office, which was put into the back of the local WHSmith, but how long will WHSmith survive across town centres such as Neath’s? We have bank branches closing the whole time; if local post offices assumed a post/bank role, banks could put their facilities in the back.
The Government need a completely new agenda on business rates as they apply to town centres. They should be completely scrapped for micro-businesses in town centres. Of course, there will be issues of defining what a town centre is: would this apply to large village centres, for example? At a central level, the Government have to fund local government because it cannot do this on its own. If rents are not scrapped for town centres, that has to be part of this as well. Of course, local government has had a 30% cut in the last 10 years, so it is no good the Government and Ministers passing the buck to local authorities; the Treasury must step in and take responsibility.
To reduce our carbon footprint and end the throwaway culture, where we never get computer printers repaired or watch batteries replaced because it is cheaper to just throw them away and buy a new one, we have to encourage a regeneration of these local skills and facilities, effectively through a subsidy. To do so, we have to end our society’s obsession with low tax. If we want a decent quality of life in town centres, which everyone says they do, we have to be prepared to pay for it. It is not going to happen on its own—market forces and commercial pressures on their own will not resolve this problem. Treasury funding, provided through local councils, is necessary in order to regenerate and revive our town centres, and I hope that the Minister will seriously consider this option in the future review, which has to be comprehensive.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD) [V]
My Lords, I warmly welcome, for the second time, this Bill to scrap business rates on public lavatories. I hope this will mean that closed loos will reopen and that local authorities will now be encouraged to provide more such facilities, including well-maintained disabled loos with hand-washing facilities. It is imperative that more disabled loos are available for our ageing population because so many people with medical conditions cannot risk leaving home without knowing that there is a suitable loo for them to use.
I commend the excellent facilities provided by Changing Places, which the Minister mentioned in his speech: they have space, hoists and a changing table, and are vital for families with disabled children. I am glad that Changing Places is going from strength to strength, with a clear map of where their facilities are installed.
However, there is a problem with the centrally held database of where there are public loos in the United Kingdom. The Government gave up on collecting this information 20 years ago, and the British Toilet Association would like to help them restart this invaluable database. It also says that local authorities would like clear guidance on cleaning and hygiene measures in these Covid times.
Nowhere in the British Isles should be far from accessible public lavatories, and this situation should be monitored. Is that asking too much?
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester. My interest is in the second of the two Bills before us about the exemption from rates for public lavatories. I too am glad to see it back again, following its having been dropped at the end of the last Parliament. I was one of a very small number of speakers at Second Reading on the previous occasion. It is remarkable and very encouraging that, for whatever reason, so much more interest has been shown in the Bill this time round.
I join with others in welcoming the measure; it addresses a very real problem, which is not much talked about in public but is nevertheless very real. This is not just a matter of convenience, as these places are increasingly difficult to find; it is also a serious health issue, particularly for people with special lavatory requirements or other health problems, who need to be able to easily find such places and have them within easy reach. There are some who dare not go to places where they are not assured of such support; there are others who find taking the risk very worrying and uncomfortable. The cost of providing and maintaining such places is not inconsiderable, so something needs to be done. The help that this Bill offers, however small, is overdue and much to be commended.
The other point that interests me about it and has led me to contribute to this debate relates to my past. I spent some time, during an earlier stage in my career as an advocate, in cases about valuation for rating. I was also the joint editor of the leading textbook on this subject in Scotland. To me, it is of interest to find that public lavatories appear as separate entries in the valuation list. I did not encounter them at any time in my practice, and they are not mentioned in the list of unusual subjects to which the book refers, such as advertising hoardings and radio masts. However, there is no doubt that they should be in the list wherever they exist as separate subjects, with the consequence that, according to the ordinary rules, they will be chargeable to non-domestic rates.
This is the result of two basic rules. The first is that every hereditament or structure that is capable of separate occupation should be the subject of its own entry on the list. The other is that the annual value that must be attached to it for rating purposes is, in theory, the rent at which the hereditament might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year, assuming that the tenant undertakes to pay all the rates and to bear the cost of repairs and other expenses necessary to maintain the structure in a state to command that rent. That may seem rather fanciful in the case of public lavatories, but it is what the rule requires. Nowadays, in practice, that figure is obtained, in cases such as this, by applying a prescribed formula which probably does not bear much relationship to actual rents but is intended to maintain some kind of balance across the entire valuation list.
In this case, we are concerned only with self-standing public lavatories that are in separate occupation, such as one might hope to find in a town centre or a public park or in or near a children’s playground. The Bill is designed to deal with that situation only, as is the method that it applies to ensure that rates do not have to be paid by those who occupy them, by which I mean those who are in rateable occupation as their owners or tenants, not the people who find it convenient to use them. However well disposed their owners or tenants may be to the public need for such facilities in these places, it is unlikely that they would be able to claim relief on the ground that they are charities. The subjects cannot be taken out of the list altogether, as that would be contrary to one of the basic principles. So, the solution is to provide by statute that they are to be entered in the list at zero value, which is what this Bill seeks to do.
Like other noble Lords, I would like to see something done to encourage the more frequent provision of public lavatories in public places such shopping malls, public libraries and bus stations. However, the problem is that facilities of that kind have to be included in the value of the larger hereditament of which they form part. They cannot be extracted from it to form a separate entry, as in the case of the subjects dealt with in the Bill. That is not to say that this is not a very important issue, but the fact is that it is not easy to provide a simple solution for them such as we have in this case. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister can assure the House that minds are not closed on that issue and that something may be done, perhaps by adjusting the relevant formula, to address it.
I support the Bill and would like it to pass into law as soon as possible.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I wish to concentrate solely on the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill and, in doing so, express my regret that these two Bills have been harnessed together. They may sound similar, but their impact is very different. I declare an interest as a member of an, as yet, informal campaign group trying to improve the quality of public toilets through the introduction of a toilet hygiene rating scheme.
I will start with a quote:
“The main results from the enquiry are 1) the quite inadequate free provision for women. This is perhaps the most outstanding defect at present existing in London in relation to this important matter.”
The inquiry referred to was undertaken in 1928 by the London County Council. This inequality was made worse by the Public Health Act 1936, which allowed providers of public toilets to charge women but not men for using facilities. That particular injustice stopped in 2008, but the inequalities in provision for women continue. Indeed, official advice from the Health and Safety Executive on workplace toilets still embodies this discrimination, setting in print a recommendation for a ratio of male to female facilities which greatly favours men.
It is a biological fact that it takes a woman approximately twice as long to use a toilet as a man. In addition, an average woman has approximately 480 periods in her lifetime, each lasting three to seven days. Some 14 million people in the UK are estimated to have some kind of bladder dysfunction. Women are more prone to this than men, because of the impact of childbirth. I share with very many women a lifelong sense of injustice that we are continually disadvantaged in this way. When did you ever see a queue outside the gents’ toilets? Modern changes of attitude recognise the argument for gender-neutral facilities, but sadly these are sometimes being provided only with the loss of facilities for women. Women from some faith and cultural backgrounds find it simply impossible to share facilities with men.
Of course, this is not the only shortcoming in our public toilets. There are still far too few changing places toilets, as my noble friend Lady Thomas referred to, with both the space and the high standard of hygiene required for severely disabled people and their carers. There are too few well-appointed toilets for disabled people generally. I also want to make a complaint on behalf of fathers. Far too many sets of public conveniences assume that all childcare is done by women, so baby-changing facilities are in the women’s toilets. Men on their own with children often face an impossible dilemma on where to change their child’s nappy.
I have campaigned on these issues since the 1980s and clearly I have failed, because the number of public toilets has dwindled. When the public complain that their cleanliness and condition are poor, local authorities facing financial problems find that the easy solution—the only solution—is to shut them down.
The Covid crisis has heightened awareness of these issues. First, we all became aware of the need for the highest standards of cleanliness. Combined with pressures on staffing, this posed a dilemma for local authorities, which too often simply shut them up completely. Over the years, as the number of council-run facilities has dwindled, we have increasingly relied on toilets in shops, pubs and cafés, but these have been shut for large parts of the last year. This led to some pretty horrifying situations, which hit the headlines when the Prime Minister suddenly decreed that we could all drive as far as we wanted for our exercise. It was midsummer and the weather was lovely. Hundreds of thousands of people set off for the coast without considering whether there were toilets for them to use during their day out. That incident revealed that good, clean public toilets are an important part of our tourist industry.
This legislation is obviously a good, sensible provision, and I support it, but it is not going to solve any of the problems I have outlined. I note that the estimated cost will be £6 million in England and £450,000 in Wales, which will hardly make up the financial deficit which has reduced the availability of good public toilets over the years. The Minister outlined other initiatives that the Government are taking to improve public toilet provision. We clearly need many more of them. The community toilet scheme that he mentioned started in Wales well over a decade ago, so it is good to see England catching up with this excellent initiative. It is now time for stricter requirements and standards. I note that the provisions of the Bill will not apply to toilets which are part of a larger unit; for example, in a public library. Why not, if they are open for public use? My local public library has the only public toilets for at least a mile and a half in all directions. That restriction seems unnecessary.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Can the noble Baroness bring her comments to a close shortly please?
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
It is definitely not in the spirit of the Minister’s speech, which emphasised how imaginative the Government have been in approaching this issue.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I should tell her that it is not that she has failed, just that she has not succeeded yet in some of the important aims that she has close to her heart.
I shall say a little bit about the first of the two Bills. I welcome the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill. I agree that the idea of postponing the date for the next revaluation to 2023, when it was originally to have been brought forward to 2021, makes sense in the context of the pandemic. I think that is the right move. The only points that I would make in relation to that are, first, to stress the importance of continuing the business rates holiday for retail during the pandemic. I welcome the fact that we have had it in this financial year but, clearly, in the next financial year it will be equally important, at least for part of that financial year, as I see it.
As my noble friend the Minister made clear, there remain long-term issues about the fair treatment of town centre retail and the proper taxation of online sales and out-of-town businesses, which we need to deal with. Clearly, that has been heightened in the pandemic. We have all welcomed online sales during the pandemic; they have performed very well. But it highlights the need to have a different tax treatment from the one that we have at present. But I certainly welcome that piece of legislation.
I turn to the second Bill. I should say that I see no problem in dealing with both Bills together at Second Reading. As I understand it, they will be separate for Committee and Report, and I welcome that, too. The second Bill is also welcome; it is virtually identical to one that your Lordships may recall I took through Second Reading in July 2019—the only difference being the retrospective nature of the tax relief that is going to be part of the scenario in this current legislation for the present financial year. That Bill fell with the prorogation and, essentially, this is the same legislation being brought forward again.
I recall from that time—and I highlight an issue that has been mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, just now—the issue of the separate assessment requirement. The problem with the legislation—and I recall looking to see whether there was a possibility of doing some apportionment—is that, unless the public lavatory is separately assessed as a single unit, the possibility of the business rate relief is not there. If it is part of a shopping centre, a museum or a library or, indeed, if it is with a council car park, the likelihood is that business rate relief will not be forthcoming, as the Bill is structured, because it has to be separate standing. That does not mean that it is not a welcome piece of legislation, but it is a defect, if what we are seeking to do is to improve the scenario demonstrably by ensuring that it is far more likely that we get a good spread of public lavatories throughout the country.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, that we need to look at this as a more serious issue than is covered by this piecemeal reform, welcome as it is. There is an issue, which we can all identify with as we go around the country and go into our own towns and communities, of the need for proper provision that can be welcomed and held up as an exemplar of what we do as a country. If my noble friend the Minister could say something about the possibility of apportionment or a more widespread reform, so we can have wider relief, that would be welcome.
I agree about the welcome measures that are there—the community toilet scheme referenced by my noble friend, and the Use Our Loos campaign funded I think by Domestos, which is also worthwhile. I also very much welcome the Changing Places toilet scheme. Could my noble friend say something about the MHCLG consultation, which I think ended in 2019, on how we are going to carry that forward and do more? As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, said, that again is much needed, and something that any civilised society would want to do.
Like others, I welcome the fact that Wales is signing up to both pieces of legislation. That is absolutely right and welcome. The only other issue that I will mention briefly is in relation to Network Rail. As I Minister, I talked with Network Rail about extending free entry for its managed stations, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, was also keen on. I think that we discovered that all mainline stations in London had free entry except for Marylebone, for some reason. Does the Minister have any update on that, or could he look at it and let me know by letter and copy it to the Library, about the position there? I very much welcome these two measures and will certainly support the Bills.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the return of the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill and hope that it will now rapidly complete its passage into law after the delays that it has suffered since its introduction. I declare a strong local interest, in that Saltaire is a village that is also a world heritage site, attracting hundreds of visitors—most often schoolchildren or retired people, both of which groups naturally ask where the toilets are as they get off the bus.
Bradford Council, faced with continuing cuts in its transfers from central government, closed most of its public toilets three years ago, including those in its three tourist destinations—Haworth, with the Brontë parsonage, Ilkley and Saltaire. I do not blame the council, which has found itself up against extremely painful choices in trying to sustain essential services. It has attempted to transfer the costs of providing these basic facilities on to the local communities, which in turn raises the question of how local councils can raise sufficient funds for services such as this when principal councils have found themselves unable to do so.
The history of local government in England is intimately connected with public health, public and private toilets and the prevention of disease. The history of Bradford and the building of Saltaire were shaped by public health concerns. Typhoid and typhus were rife in Bradford in the early 19th century, as a result of overcrowding and the contamination of water supplies. Titus Salt therefore decided to move his entire works and workers out to the countryside, specifically building clean water and the regular emptying of privies into the design of the village. But Titus Salt did not regard such provision as purely a private affair; he was also a local councillor and twice mayor of Bradford, and he raised local rates to pay for public improvements in water supply and sewage disposal.
It is a sad indication of the peculiar mix of anarchic libertarianism and authoritarianism with which the Conservative Party has now become infected that some have questioned whether the provision of toilets is a public duty. We have heard suggestions that visitors can use local shops instead for toilet breaks—not an easy option in a Victorian village such as Saltaire, where toilets were originally in back yards and are now either in basements or upstairs, meaning no access for the elderly or disabled. At a time when our country is gripped by a pandemic, with the Prime Minister regularly reminding us all to wash our hands as often as we can, the suggestion that people away from home should not have easy access to toilets and washing facilities takes the idea of the privatisation of public services to a dangerous extreme.
There are wider issues here about the future of local government finance—and the future of local government and local democracy as a whole. We have all witnessed the bias against local government that the Conservative Government display, painfully evident in the way that they turned to multinational outsourcing companies to set up the test and trace scheme for Covid-19 last spring, rather than turning to local authorities and their public health officers, who would have known how to do it. Government plans to parcel up bits of Whitehall to dispatch outside London, rather than devolving decision-making power to regional and local government, demonstrate a similar engrained authoritarian centralism.
The Prime Minister’s pledge to level up the neglected communities and regions of this country will not begin to make a difference unless the funding, and the powers, of local authorities in these regions are transformed. The Treasury is now undertaking a fundamental review of business rates, as the Minister noted in his opening speech. But questions of the relationship between local and central government in England, including the fiscal and redistributive aspects of that relationship, go much wider than those of business rates alone, of which the provision and financing of public toilets is itself only a small part. The Government have promised us a devolution White Paper. I look forward to the publication of that, and I hope that Ministers will be open to a wide debate on the future of England’s local and regional government when at last it appears.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks, and, like many others, I support these Bills. I will confine my remarks to the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill, not least because the other Bill—and the important subject it raises—has been dealt with comprehensively and succinctly by my noble friend Lady Andrews and a number of others, embellished by the hygiene history of Saltaire given by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. It is always a pleasure to follow him.
Like other noble Lords, I fully understand the need for the measures contained in the Bill. In effect, in summary they will help ensure that future business rates will better reflect the potential effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on the commercial property market by postponing the date of the next business rates revaluation until April 2023. It seems to make sense—not least to the business community affected—to take into account the effects of changing market conditions, and that is why I will support the Bill. But perhaps the Minister could respond to one or two questions and queries that I have regarding the Bill.
First of all, it seems to me that the delay cuts both ways. Does it not mean, for instance, that some businesses badly affected by the pandemic will have to tolerate their existing burden of rates—assessed and set in perhaps much more benign circumstances some years ago—for potentially an additional two years, while their present commercial reality may be much changed for the worse precisely because of the pandemic? To address this, could not the new valuation and assessment, taking into account the effects of the pandemic, be carried out in a much shorter time than the additional two years outlined in the Bill? Perhaps the Minister could tell us.
Secondly, as we have heard on several occasions, the Government are presently undertaking a fundamental review of business rates and, as part of that exercise, they are considering the frequency of future revaluations. Can the Minister tell us what specific implications, if any, today’s Bill might have on that review? Can he assure us, for instance, that the review will not be unduly delayed because of the measures we are considering today, or are we to assume, as I did from his opening remarks, that there has already been a delay on this, partly—presumably—because of the attention being given to the pandemic, including those aspects which relate to the present Bill?
Thirdly, will the additional time being allowed by this Bill permit a consideration of wider changes in market conditions outside of those directly springing from the pandemic? Is it to be exclusively centred in its consideration on the pandemic itself, or, for instance, are the short-term effects of Brexit, which may well prove as deleterious as the pandemic itself for some businesses, to be taken into account?
Finally, in supporting these measures, I should say that, as others have stressed, while they are a common-sense response to a temporary and, I hope, unique challenge—the Covid-19 pandemic—they do not provide a long-term solution to the recurrent problems and criticisms associated with the present valuation process, with which all of us are very familiar. That will be provided only by the review and reform of the whole process mentioned by the Minister. I hope that the Minister can assure myself and all the other noble Lords who have raised this that it will be a thoroughgoing review, followed by the expeditious implementation of the necessary and appropriate reforms, and that that is the Government’s prime longer-term objective.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Government for introducing the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill, which applies business rates relief to all public lavatories in England and Wales. We know that many public toilets have closed during the Covid-19 pandemic, and this Bill helps local authorities and others who provide these facilities to keep them open, cleaned and generally maintained.
As co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Bladder and Bowel Continence Care, I cannot overstate the importance of government support to keep public lavatories open at this time. It is important to understand, however, that the decline in access to public toilets predates the current pandemic, and I will briefly highlight what I believe are the most urgent issues which need to be addressed.
First, there is no verifiable data on the total number of public lavatories in England and Wales. The British Toilet Association estimates that there has been a 60% reduction in the number of public toilets in the last decade—60%, my Lords. According to the National Association of Local Councils, business rates on public lavatories cost local councils around £8 million each year. Increasingly, local councils are picking up the management of public lavatories due to financial pressure facing principal councils. One of the reasons this is so urgent is that there are 14 million people in the UK living with bladder control issues, and 6.5 million with bowel issues. A Royal Society for Public Health survey in 2018 found that one in five people do not feel able to go out as often as they would like due to the lack of public toilets provided throughout England and Wales.
One group who have been negatively impacted by the closure of public toilets throughout the coronavirus pandemic are bus drivers, delivery drivers and others who work in the transport sector, who are increasingly helping all of us during this time. One way to support these essential workers is to ensure greater access to toilets.
Not only do we need more public lavatories but we need to ensure that these provide the support that people need; for example, there are often no bins provided for the disposal of stoma and other continence and personal care products, especially in men’s toilets. Also, people with severe disabilities require toilets with hoist systems and height-adjustable changing benches, and there are still too few public lavatories with these facilities across the country.
It is recognised that there are economic benefits of providing clean and accessible public toilets: doing so boosts tourism and supports businesses on the high street. The Bill is an important first step towards achieving this.
When the Bill was debated in the other place, it was suggested that the Government publish an assessment of the impact of this legislation and that as part of this assessment they should start collecting verifiable data on the number of public lavatories in England and Wales.
The Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 requires all local authorities in Wales to publish a local toilets strategy by 2021. The aim of this is to encourage Welsh local authorities to invest in public toilets. Local authorities in England should also be required to publish a local public toilets strategy. By collecting and publishing verifiable data on the provision of public lavatories, the Government would be supporting local authorities in delivering such essential strategies, which is surely the minimum we can demand.
I end by commenting that until public lavatories were introduced in railway stations, only women with personal maids could travel—which we sometimes forget. Public lavatories are essential, and they become more and more so as we hope we can become more and more civilised.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I fully support the comments of my noble friends Lady Thomas of Winchester and Lady Randerson on the NDR (Public Lavatories) Bill. It is essential, in terms of equality, that the number of disabled lavatories and access to them should be increased, not only in town centres but in visitor attractions and beauty spots around the country. Other Peers have spoken eloquently on that issue.
Turning to the NDR (Lists) (No. 2) Bill, I have a few points to make. While I support moving the date for compiling the lists to 1 April 2023, this is an opportunity to move from a five-yearly review to one every three years. Other noble Lords have spoken to this issue. I would not support moving to a yearly revaluation as this would be too great an administrative burden on local authorities, but a three-yearly revaluation would be a good compromise.
It is important that we fully understand what is happening to our high streets. During lockdowns, most of the retail and market outlets are not able to trade. Some retail outlets have been able to move their business to online trading and delivery, but most have not. We have reached a stage where enormous warehouses have been constructed to service online business, but they do not contribute in the same proportion as high-street businesses. Now is surely the time to readjust the rating system so that the rateable value and rates paid by high-street retail outlets is radically reduced permanently. At the same time, online warehouse operations should be taxed in proportion to their size, turnover and profitability.
While it has been enormously beneficial to people to be able to buy goods online during lockdown, especially in the run-up to Christmas, the effect on the high street has been catastrophic. Many retail outlets rely on the December trade to see them through the rest of the year. I am sure the Minister does not wish to see a return to the moribund state of our high streets during past recessions. I welcome the rate relief which the Minister has set out to alleviate hardship during Covid, but that is only short-term.
I will speak briefly on mixed hereditaments. Many, many years ago I sat on rating appeal tribunals. While a large proportion were about dates, there were a proportion of mixed hereditaments, with those living in premises above retail outlets which they ran having concerns about their rateable value. The Government have been keen to increase the housing supply by allowing developers to give notice to quit to business tenants in blocks of flats in town centres over retail outlets. These premises were then allowed to be converted into domestic dwellings. These conversions have not been subject to building controls, and in many cases have resulted in substandard accommodation with very limited space.
Can the Minister say whether these newly converted domestic dwellings were subject to reassessment of their rateable value? Were they changed from business rates to domestic rates? Did the local authorities in which the dwellings were situated receive less in rates payments than previously or more? As the Minister knows, local authorities are very dependent on the receipt of rates to help balance their budgets and to fund their vital services to the community.
While providing homes for those desperate to escape sofa-surfing with their long-suffering friends and relatives, it is important that the accommodation provided through office conversions is adequate, meets minimum standards and provides a dignified living space for their residents. I look forward to the Minister’s response on this and other matters in this debate.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has withdrawn from this debate, so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
My Lords, the non-domestic rating Bill is a simple Bill but it has some important ramifications that I want the Minister to clarify in this debate.
The first point I want to explore is how the Government intend to compensate local authorities for the income lost through the current Covid-19 emergency rates rebates, particularly for retail premises. As the Minister himself said, that has cost around £10 billion in this financial year, and it is at least a possibility that there will be some extension of that rebate system into the next year. My first question to the Minister is therefore: who is carrying the burden of that shortfall? Are the Chancellor and the Treasury making up the missing income so that local authorities do not lose out on the redistribution, or is the payout to the fund being cut and the damage borne by local authorities? The Minister may feel that that is outside the scope of the Bill, but that matter is very relevant to the point I shall explore in just a minute or two.
The Bill is the end product of a yo-yo policy-making process by the Government. Plan A was to reduce the review periods to every three years with a review date in 2022. That was changed to an intention to bring the review forward to 2021, to tackle the increasing evidence that outdated valuations were producing more and more unfair burdens for some—especially high-street retailers—and unearned tax holidays for others, especially distribution centres and out-of-town warehouses.
However, we now have a Bill that is to be effective from 2023, which is one year later than the original plan A and two years later than plan B. The Bill, plan C, avoids carrying out revaluation surveys until the Covid-19 pandemic is over—we sincerely hope. That makes sense in the current circumstances; it is not an issue for me at least. But the crucial point that remains is for how long hard-pressed retailers will be left paying exorbitant rates for rapidly depreciating high-street locations. How soon will they get the relief they so desperately need? One unintended result of the switch from plan B to plan C could be that that relief will be delayed by up to two years—a point the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, made eloquently.
One key to this may be the antecedent valuation date, or AVD. That is the baseline date from which assessing the rental values will be made. I am indebted to the Association of Convenience Stores for its briefing on that topic. The first part of the briefing welcomes a proposed AVD of 1 April this year because the ACS believes that would allow full account to be taken of the steep decline in retail values and would give its members smaller rates bills to pay. The second part makes a case for the urgent extension of the rates relief scheme into the coming year because of the continuing impact of Covid-19 on its businesses. Indeed, it says in its evidence that four out of 10 of its members would have gone out of business without that support this year, so it has been absolutely critical.
The Bill is running two years later than the Government originally intended. There must not be a two-year delay in bringing the benefits of an updated valuation to the retail sector, which has been left on its knees, not just by Covid-19 but by underlying trends in retail purchasing that were already in train but have been hugely accelerated as a result of it.
If the revaluation is done this year and comes into force only in 2023—and, even worse, if there is any kind of a transition period that delays any benefits to it—the retail industry, already struggling desperately, will be left high and dry between the end of the Chancellor’s scheme and their incoming reduced rates bills. That brings me back to the working of the current retail rate relief system. If the Chancellor has acknowledged the acute pressures facing retail businesses by granting them business rates relief, and if he pays heed to what the Association of Convenience Stores and many others have had to say about extending that scheme, surely there has to be some joined-up thinking across government departments. It cannot make any sense for there to be a critical gap of two years, possibly more, between the end of the Chancellor’s scheme and the delayed implementation of the rates revaluation, given that that review is to be based on an AVD of 1 April this year.
Can the Minister confirm that the AVD will indeed be on 1 April and that he will strongly resist any idea of phasing in the reliefs granted by the revaluation beyond 2023, which would delay the benefit to the retail sector even further? Will he explore any available options for implementing at least some parts of the revaluation at an earlier date than April 2023 so that their full impact will immediately be available sooner, to the retail sector in particular? The public lavatories Bill has a backdated provision granting retrospective tax relief from 2020, so the concept will not be unfamiliar to him. Will he consider introducing a similar provision for the retail rebates in this Bill as well?
Finally, if an early start is not an option, will he work with the Chancellor to provide appropriate transitional support to that sector between the end of the Chancellor’s scheme—that is, the current support package—and the new valuations taking effect? It would be folly for what is now a two-year delay in the original timetable proposed by the Government, which would lead to a near-fatal blow to our high streets—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I remind the noble Lord of the advisory speaking limit.
Lord Thurlow (CB) [V]
I wish to address the Bill concerning non-domestic rates on commercial premises. The other Bill has been well discussed; I certainly support it. I declare my interests as in the register.
I cannot make these comments without some focus on reform of the system. By way of background, I spent some 40 years working in non-domestic property. I also spent a limited time—but some time, nevertheless—in the rates department of my firm, where I learned that this is a highly specialised sector lying within a specialist division of the RICS. It is a complex business.
This Bill is about moving the revaluation date forward, thus adopting values from March this year. I believe that it is flawed. In the retail sector, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to establish estimated rental value—ERV—based on supply and demand and comparable evidence. There are probably thousands of empty shop units across England and Wales. Some will have had no offers for many months, let alone competition—an unheard-of blight in my 40 years of market practice. Many landlords have given up the premises for temporary charity use precisely to avoid the NDR obligation. There is virtually no retail letting activity from which the ERV must be assessed in only a couple of months’ time.
This blight was predicted. For 10 years at least, the industry has been debating the implications of internet shopping for the traditional retail format of high streets, out-of-town shopping and shopping centres. The threat was clear, and it has arrived. Traditional retail must change dramatically if it is to survive the low-rent, low-rates model of internet shopping.
Of course, the body blow to traditional retail is Covid. For many retailers, it is the death knell of their businesses. Every day, the newspapers remind us of high street retailers folding. A few will be bought out of administration but many will disappear, with jobs lost, debts, personal guarantees and tragedy. However, if you are Amazon or any internet retailer, Covid has played into your hands, with low rent, low rates and collapsing competition.
With the Government turning something of a blind eye to the soft rates regime for these internet businesses, the high street carnage comes as no surprise. Yet this could swiftly be corrected if the rating value rules recognised internet warehouses as the engine room of internet shopping. The burden of rates should follow the money and the profits. We should treat these warehouses as the retail properties they have become. The Government have provided Covid rates relief—huge relief—but to the high street, this is a stay of execution, not a cure. Retail patterns are not changing; they have changed.
Moving the valuation date will require valuers to assess ERV at the trough of a dead market. There will be little evidence. The problem will arrive with an appeals process of huge proportions. There will be a tsunami of claims. Without internet shopping, this would not be a problem.
The fundamental review that we expect in the spring, as mentioned by the Minister, is welcome but I fear that these events are occurring in the wrong order. The definitions of “internet shopping” and “distribution centres” must be rewritten to acknowledge their role. Following that event, the valuation process could unfold. High street retail could settle down. Rates would be at an economically justified level. Post-Covid markets would be able to return to a balance between supply and demand.
I fear for those in the VOA who, I believe, will be overwhelmed by the appeals process. I am afraid that the NDR, as applied to retail, is a broken system. There has been a simple transfer of retail trade away from shops to the internet without the corresponding and necessary transfer of rateable obligation. Can the Minister tell the House how long we must wait, following the review, for legislation to reform fundamentally the non-domestic rating system?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I welcome both these pieces of legislation. They seem an odd coupling, though, so I hope that the Minister will manage to separate out all the comments on the two. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
First, I want to talk about taxing online businesses. They were already outdoing physical businesses before the pandemic, but now, our rapid transition to a digital life over the past 12 months has concentrated commerce into a very small number of online businesses while small high street businesses are really struggling—much more than they did before. It is obvious that we need some sort of online sales tax so that online businesses do not have unfair tax advantages relative to physical businesses. The revenue should go to the local authority of the delivery address. It is a real pity that the Bill does not include such a measure, because this is an opportunity not to moan but to encourage local businesses, which is what we should be doing.
It is good that the Government are finally delivering on their promise to scrap business rates for public toilets. Public toilets are important for everyone but they are especially important for people who might need to use the bathroom more due to age, illness, disability and a whole host of other reasons. Should we be doing more to support their provision? Rather than just scrapping business rates, we could employ a negative rate so that public toilets could earn a rebate based on their rateable value. Businesses and premises that allow the public to use their toilet for free—that is, without needing to buy anything—would therefore benefit. The Explanatory Notes give the example of a toilet in a library premises not being eligible for the zero rate. This is a missed opportunity to encourage more premises to make their toilets readily available to the public. Of course, if, like the Victorians, we were prepared to build new public toilets—or even open the Victorian ones—we would not need to do this.
Finally, I shall talk more broadly about the old system of land taxation. It is a long-standing and fundamental policy for the Green Party that all land should be subject to a land value tax, which would share the unearned value of land use among the community. A policy of taxing land value would act as an incentive to encourage good stewardship and to reduce corporate land ownership—and, of course, the practice of land banking. It would encourage the best use of all land, compatible with the agreed permitted use, encouraging urban land to be used to its full extent and discouraging land ownership for investment purposes only.
A policy of taxing land value would bring many benefits to a large majority of the population, whether urban or rural, including owner-occupiers in small or medium plots and those who do not own land. Taxing land value thus contributes to the creation of a decentralised and sustainable society. Eliminating speculation in land and stabilising prices should make land more available at cheaper prices, enabling more workers’ co-operatives, small-scale enterprises and other community ventures to flourish.
The key difference of a land value tax compared to business rates and council tax is that the tax is levied on the unimproved value of the land itself, not the rentable value of the buildings placed on that land. The level at which the tax would be levied would be based on the full value of the current permitted use of the land, so permitted use would mean, for example, that the taxable value of land deemed by the community to have special amenity or habitat value would inhibit use for a possible greater financial return. When it is considered desirable to change the use through the land use planning framework, this new permitted use would then form the basis of the assessment, so communities would be able to keep what they see as valuable land, which might be open space or habitat for animals, without incurring huge costs.
I would love to hear the Minister’s views on land value tax and for him to take the issue away to explore further with officials. We should be taking a much deeper, longer-term look at reforming the whole of land taxes in this country. This is perhaps not the moment—but if not now, when?
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I wish to address the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill, and much of my comments will reflect the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Thurlow. Although this is a short and, I suppose, on the surface relatively uncontroversial Bill, amending the date of the next revaluation for business rates to 1 April 2023, it presents a key opportunity to raise the Government's awareness of the need for a complete overhaul of the business rates system—and, in particular at this time, to save shops by giving them a lower and simpler cost base from which to operate in future.
The Minister will know that retail is a sector that generates about £20 billion in taxes and contributes about £7.5 billion in business rates each year, largely from the high streets and town centres, with further tax contributions made throughout the supply chain. The burden of business rates has risen extremely high in the past 30 years, up from an average of 35p in the pound of rateable value in 1990 to more than 51p, causing business failures, store closures and job losses. The problem for physical retail is accentuated by the rise of online retail and is most acute in the north and the Midlands, adding to the business pressures on those communities.
Frankly, in my judgment, the system is broken. From my past activities in the Commons—that is why I took 1990 as a reference point—and before that as leader of the London Borough of Islington, I believe that business rates have always been a challenge. Now we have a pressing need for a fair system of taxation for business. We need an urgent plan to keep rates at manageable levels to save jobs and retain the character of our shopping places, town centres and high streets. I have done some consultation with the industry, and there are three points it would have me make, which I now make—and agree with. First, we should reduce and fix the uniform business rate from the current 51p-plus rate back to somewhere near 30p, so that it more closely reflects physical retail’s share of sales in the 2020s. Secondly, we should introduce annual business rates revaluation from 2023, to ensure that business rates are fair and accurately reflect market conditions. Thirdly, we should abolish downwards transitional phasing to further support the recovery of the retail sector.
In the immediate term, the Government need urgently to commit to continuing the Covid-19 business rate holiday for retail. The industry itself has accepted that at the end of the current system, a 50% rate would seem appropriate. However, we now have a somewhat different situation because of a significant rise in Covid-19 cases, which has led to the current lockdown. We now see it as vital for the Government to sustain the current relief at 100% until the end of the pandemic to enable retailers and businesses to make the decisions needed now to ensure their survival and recovery next year.
I understand that the industry supports April 2023 as the next revaluation date, but has real concerns about the antecedent valuation date—the AVD—set for 1 April 2021. This would mean that the new rating assessments and rate bills in 2023 would be based on the state of the economy and property rental value at 1 April this year. Given the current lockdown and the prognosis for it to be lifted not before Easter, retail will not have recovered from the economic losses experienced by successive lockdowns for this now to be the appropriate date for revaluation.
Reliable market retail data, which is the basis of AVD, will not be available until at least April 2021 and maybe not until the following January. I therefore urge my Government to defer the AVD, which is specified in secondary legislation, so that it will not affect the primary legislation. I conclude by saying once again that this debate on this Bill provides a unique opportunity to highlight the need for fundamental business review.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab) [V]
My Lords, I refer to the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill, and agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, just said. Although I welcome that the Bill postpones the revaluation of business rates until April 2023 to help firms affected by the pandemic, I cannot but think, as a number of noble Lords have expressed, that this is a missed opportunity for root-and-branch overhaul of the rating system, despite the Minister having pledged that there will be a review of the current system.
The economy is facing a double-dip recession and many businesses are under extreme financial pressure, as several noble Lords have said. Spending patterns are changing as more goods are bought online. High business rates are killing off our high street and, in these circumstances, a further hike in rates, even two years down the road, will sound the final death knell for many struggling businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, described his experience with his local high street and the independent traders there that are under threat.
As the CBI pointed out in a recent report, the uniform business rate has risen by 44% over the last 30 years. The UBR would be lower if it had risen only in line with inflation. If the switch in indexation from RPI to CPI had happened earlier, it would have saved businesses £13 billion over a nine-year period. The UBR makes up a significant proportion of fixed costs for businesses—another reason any further increase should be delayed beyond 2023. The Government should look at rebasing the UBR, which would boost business investment and fuel economic growth at a crucial time for the UK’s economic recovery from Covid-19.
The CBI has made a number of recommendations and I hope the Minister will take them on board, particularly when the review gets fully under way. For example, for the remainder of the 2017 revaluation period, the Government should freeze the UBR. As a number of noble Lords have said, relief should continue to be targeted to support the most vulnerable businesses, so badly hit by the pandemic.
The Minister should ask himself, “Do we want to save our high streets and many smaller businesses, or not?” Currently, any business that can operate remotely will continue to do so, with implications for the economic health of our city and town centres. The incentives to cut staff and operate from smaller or with no office space will continue. Remote working can bring many benefits, especially if linked to more flexible working, but it should not lead to the shrinkage of our vibrant business sector and have the effect of turning our urban centres into ghost towns.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, my taking part in this Bill is totally down to the presence of two other names on the list. The first is that of my noble friend Lady Thomas, because of the points she made when one of these Bills was first presented to the House. When I heard her speech, I said, “I should have been there to back her up.” The second is the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, because when he puts his name down you can reckon there will probably be something about sport. There was not a big jump from rating to small sports clubs—it was not down, but it was something that was going through.
To deal with them in that order, the provision of public toilets, particularly for giving some support to those who are disabled and need access to them, is something a civilised society should do. If you think about it, what you are trying to avoid is a disabled person being fundamentally humiliated—or risking that—when they go out in public. To be perfectly honest, if someone fouls themself, it is not only unpleasant and unsightly, but that person has been marked down as “other”—as being beneath you in public. That is what it effectively amounts to. You have to bear that in mind. You have to actually put that down and say, “That will restrict that person; that fear will restrict them more than just about anything else.” Anybody with them does not want to go through that either.
In coffee shop culture, if we ever get back to it, where cafés have a loo, there is also that little sign that we used to see only in pubs: “Customers’ use only”. It is not a public facility; you are not sure if it is there. You have to go into the place and find it. Is it upstairs or down? We do not know. Many of the suggestions we have heard today, about making available the knowledge of where toilets are and so on, are things that, as a civilised society, we should take on board fundamentally.
To turn my attention to the points about the rating value and the amateur sports groups or smaller sports clubs, we have agreed the principle; let us get the practice down so that it is easy to administer. Let us help these groups. In our society we have a huge bonus in our small sports clubs because, due to historical accident, they are usually self-funded. Local government is not required to provide the stade municipale, as it would be in France. Small clubs have financed themselves. They have given us an infrastructure that will implement government policy—and has been seen as something to implement public policy—for many years. Give them this little bit of help. The principle has been accepted; just say, “Go and get on with it.”
I do not know how many times I have said this, but we have institutions funded either by people taking part and paying a match fee—or whatever you call it—or by the bar. Neither of those income streams is coming in. The Government will have to look at this and are probably keeping an eye on making sure that these institutions stay there, but the higher echelons of most of these sports are not generating the money that used to trickle down. We have a major problem there to keep something that we need and use—to implement the rest of government policy—functioning, or at least functioning at the rate it should. You will not get more people being more active without the use of these things. Even in later-life activity, if you have never moved till the age of 50, and then someone says, “Why don’t you go for a walk with everybody else?” it will be like climbing the Eiger to go up a small hill, to be perfectly honest. We have to make sure that the facilities are there.
I will leave my remarks there, but unless we address these fundamental problems, by making sure that somebody feels safe and has their personal dignity intact when they go out, they will not go out. Let us make sure that we have public toilets you can get to. When it comes to sports clubs, if you have something for free, provided by the general public, that implements government policy, it is insane not to make sure that they can continue to function in the future, especially after the experience of Covid.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord and I very much endorse what he said on those subjects. I begin by declaring my relevant interests as set out in the register.
I wholly endorse the powerful and often moving points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews, Lady Thomas of Winchester and Lady Randerson, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire: we cannot, in a civilised society, allow squalor to prevail when we should have dignified surroundings. If anything underlined the need for decent public facilities in the form of public lavatories, it was the series of repulsive scenes in the summer when people flocked to tourist areas and defiled them—in some cases wantonly, but in others because there was no adequate facility.
I want to concentrate my remarks on the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill because it is absolutely essential that we concentrate, as many noble Lords have this afternoon, on the dire future facing the retail trade—in particular the entertainment sector, including hotels, restaurants, cafés et cetera. I congratulate the Government and thank them warmly for the rescue action they took last year in giving the business rate holiday. They were right to defer the revaluation.
I want to concentrate my remarks on our town, city and, indeed, village centres, and on our high streets. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, in particular, made some extremely important points: if you want to sustain the throwaway society, all you need to do is depopulate our town and city centres. What has to be addressed in the review—it is vital that it is thorough and that we have it soon—is the disparity of treatment between town centre and high-street shops and the vast warehouses, which we have all drawn on during periods of lockdown. They perform a valuable service but they are getting away, if not scot free, then with very little to pay for it. We have to readjust the balance; we have to means test business rates in a way that means the Amazons of this world pay what they properly should, and the small, specialist shops in a glorious town such as Ludlow in Shropshire, or Louth here in Lincolnshire, are not penalised to the point of extinction.
Let us concentrate on this specific issue, and let us also remember that while we have to nurture the smaller shops so that they survive, we have to recognise that the supermarkets have prospered wonderfully over this last year. After all, they are virtually the only large shops allowed to be open at the moment. I thank them for their service. We all depend upon them. They were right to pay back some of what they had been given, but they must be treated differently from the smaller shops.
We have to remember in this context that one of our greatest industries, on which we will depend considerably in the future, is tourism. If we rip the heart out of towns such as Ludlow and Louth by, in effect, closing their restaurants, pubs, et cetera, and their smaller specialist shops, we will certainly decrease the attractiveness of our towns and cities to tourists.
I implore my noble friend to do all he can to bring on the review, but he must make sure that it is thorough and realistic. We all remember the poll tax; I do, as one who never cast a single vote in its favour, even when it was introduced in Scotland. We do not want to have a review that leads to anything like that. We must reform our non-domestic rating system to allow prosperity to return to our towns and cities. If we do not, we will have missed an opportunity. The business rates holiday must continue throughout this next year; otherwise, we will destroy that which we proclaim we wish to preserve.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this government Bill will introduce 100% mandatory business rates relief for public lavatories in England and Wales. In recent years, organisations such as the Royal Society for Public Health have expressed concerns about the rate at which public lavatories have closed. According to data obtained by the BBC in 2018, local councils have stopped maintaining at least 673 public lavatories across the UK since 2010. Local councils have also reduced the number of lavatories they maintain over the past few years.
In the March 2020 Budget, the Chancellor recommitted to reintroduce business rates relief measures for public lavatories. He said that it would apply retrospectively from 1 April 2020. In September 2020, the Bill was passed in the House of Commons with cross-party support. The Minister, Simon Clarke, said that the Bill will help reduce running costs and
“keep these vital facilities open.”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/9/20; col. 334.]
The coronavirus pandemic has also led to local authorities temporarily closing some public lavatories to help reduce the spread of the virus. The closure of such facilities has had a massive impact on those who require access to them, including those with medical needs and pregnant women. The closure of such facilities could push people further into the shadows and heighten their isolation.
While the rates reduction is a good measure by the Government, coronavirus has once again created further difficulties. Only the scientists can find a solution, with the full co-operation of local authorities.
Baroness Thornhill (LD) [V]
I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. As my noble friend Lord Shipley and others have so ably stated, we have few issues around the specifics of the Bill and the most pertinent points have already had a good airing during this excellent debate. Like many others speaking today, I believe that the time for tinkering with and tweaking the business rates system has long passed. I eagerly await the outcome of the review and urge the Government to be both bold and radical.
During my years as the elected Mayor of Watford, in any discussion with businesses in the town, business rates would crop up. I had a set patter about how we, the local authority, did not set business rates, nor did we get all the money into our coffers; we were merely the collector. Interestingly, that fact was always greeted with incredulity. The first complaint was that the rates were too high, of course, and the next that the system of exemptions and reliefs was too complicated; it is. Then, a matter of which I knew nothing at first was the long gap between valuations and the real problems that led to. They clearly felt that such valuations were out of kilter with local economic realities and should be more frequent. In previous iterations of the Bill, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, a period of three years was proposed, but it has now gone back to five years, while many groups press for annual valuations. Perhaps the Minister could explain the thinking behind that.
There is no doubt that the Bill, in kicking back the revaluation by a further year, will give businesses some stability, which has been broadly welcomed. But I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, on the AVD, and I too would like the Minister to explain the rationale for the next valuation to be based on April 2021 costs and rentals. That is surely too early for the full impact of the pandemic to hit, and yet it will not be implemented until April 2023. As my noble friend Lord Stunell said, businesses that get a valuation downwards have to pay more rates for a further two years, at an already difficult time.
If I really wanted to see sparks fly in the conversations I mentioned earlier, I only had to mention transitional relief schemes. This is but one of a number of examples in which the current web of reliefs hinders the system and, more importantly, contributes to further unfairness. It needs serious reform. There was also always “Don’t get me started on appeals,” usually with a look towards the heavens. Appeals have already been mentioned by several noble Lords, as well as the backlog of 50,000 cases for the 2010 and 2017 lists. Minister, is there a closing date for the appeals from the 2017 list yet? Within the forthcoming reforms, is there consideration for a much shorter window of time following a revaluation—say, six months—in which to appeal?
It has long been recognised that the Valuation Office Agency is not agile enough to keep up with and adapt to changes in demand within sectors, such as the shift towards online, which has been much mentioned this afternoon. The case could be made that delayed devaluations have, in fact, acted as a subsidy for online retail. While logistics space has massively increased as a result of this trend, it is not taxed anywhere near as heavily as retail shop space. Are the Government looking to address this particular unfairness in their upcoming reforms? The VOA has been criticised for being difficult to deal with and cumbersome, and its valuations as often opaque and inconsistent. Minister, will any consideration be given to local government being the responsible authority for valuations, working in genuine partnership with local experts who know their patch and can respond to change more quickly? This happens successfully in some other countries, often alongside annual revaluations. It can be done.
The principle behind the local retention of business rates is good but, unfortunately, in reality it has meant that local authorities are now competing with each other, not only to attract inward investment, but even to outbid each other in the now controversial commercial entrepreneurial investments. I feel that, particularly in a two-tier system, economic areas are just too small to be really effective and local enterprise partnerships lack the powers and finance to make a difference.
Combined authorities, however, are showing what can be done to drive improvement across larger economic areas. Minister, to encourage and incentivise councils to work together on economic development, which is surely needed, would the Government consider allowing areas that agree to work in this pooling system to keep 100% of their business rates? Finally, can the Minister at least hint at whether it is the Government’s intention, eventually, to transfer the powers and freedoms around businesses rates that are currently available to elected mayors in combined authorities to all local authorities?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I will address the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill. I happen to agree with the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Cormack, that there is a fundamental direct correlation between business rates and the prosperity of our towns and cities, and there is a clear need for business rate reform. In his opening address, the Minister referred to a report on this being forthcoming in early spring. I have to say that that will be challenging, because this fundamental review will have to reflect what has happened as a result of the pandemic, that existing evaluations or revaluations have taken a considerable time and that there are about 50,000 appeals with the VOA. So what will be the constituent parts of that review, when will it be published and when will it be implemented? Will it mean further legislation?
Initially, I referred to the fact that there is a direct correlation between the prosperity of our towns and cities—as already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—and business rates and revaluations. There is a need to protect, boost and regenerate high streets. An opportunity must be given during this pandemic to rebuild businesses and their revenue-creating potential. Many of them have been forced to close because they are considered non-essential. Some were never able to open following the first lockdown, including many in the hospitality and retail sector, and they have lost a lot of important revenue. That must be reflected in the Government’s root-and-branch review of business rates. They have also had to compete with large out-of-town supermarkets and the online trade from companies such as Amazon. Therefore, those retail businesses and general businesses have found themselves undermined in every sector. This must be addressed.
Will the Minister have a conversation with ministerial colleagues in BEIS and in the Treasury about a revamp of our towns and cities, putting the heart back into our towns and cities with a freeze on commercial rents for at least one year, a business rate and business taxation reform—which has already been referred to by myself and other noble Lords—a possible rethink or lifting of Sunday trading restrictions, a rethink on the extension of permitted development rights, extension of the towns fund beyond the 101 locations, the expansion of business improvement districts and the expansion of city deals, working with local government, and for all those to happen and be constituent parts of any plan?
This requires a total regeneration plan for our high streets, coupled with that root-and-branch review of the business rates system that reflects what has happened to our businesses as a result of the pandemic. Measures need to be put in place to protect the independent retailers that are having to compete with the large supermarkets which are busy trading when many of them are closed. So can the Minister indicate what action will be taken to address those areas and ensure that a fairer, more equitable business rating system is implemented that reflects the challenges, difficulties and problems faced by all businesses as a result of the pandemic? I have talked to the Booksellers Association, which has no particular issue with 2021 as a base year for 2023 but would like to see some form of transitional relief.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register as an owner of a small commercial office building from which I ran my business for many years.
There is an inherent unfairness in a tax based on the nature of the property that it is necessary to occupy to conduct a particular type of business rather than based on profitability. Maybe they once marched in step, when retail margins were high and out-of-town and internet selling were not prevalent. Now retail pays 25% of the tax for 10% of gross added value to the economy, and it constitutes 42% of their taxes. These distinctions are broadening further with the expansion of office work from home and more online shopping. If commercial space dwindles, the remainder will inevitably be on the treadmill of ever higher rates to satisfy the tax need. The truth is that the tax base has to be broadened and based on commercial activity and profit. It should be based on known fact, not supposition. I hope the consultation will have that scope.
Why are we sticking with the general design of the present system? It is broken. It does not properly track rents, which are far from the stable or routinely upward rent reviews that were once the story. Added to that background is the ongoing effect of forced closures and staying at home, whether from legislation or from caution. Is that going to be taken into account? Like others, I welcome the rate holiday that has already been given. Will the Government consider further reliefs for the most affected businesses, both in terms of compensation for what they could not do and as a mechanism to aid recovery?
The Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill postpones a review that had been brought forward, which will disappoint many who had been hoping for an earlier lowering of rateable values. Given that the Government are fixed on a delay, I still wonder about the base date for revaluation being April this year, which is likely still to be a time of uncertainty and flux, with relocations out of cities and working from home escalating, shop closures and growing numbers of empty properties of all kinds. How do those empty properties feed into the analysis? Surely their emptiness shows a lack of takers, so how is the market price found?
Unfortunately, delaying a review further would also cause disappointment, but why is it not possible to sample rents for the purpose of adjustment in the same way that a basket of products is monitored for the cost of living? That is a genuine question, as well as perhaps another consultation point. Will the next review be brought forward in sectors or areas where there have been significant changes since April 2021?
Turning to the Bill concerning the removal of rates for stand-alone public lavatories, again I confess to wondering how market rents for public lavatories are assessed, but the measure is welcome. “Stand-alone” means a building that is “wholly or mainly” a public lavatory, so does the Minister have any more guidance about what constitutes “mainly”? What about a combined public lavatory and bus stop? I have seen such an arrangement in car park and rides. Does “mainly” have to mean more than 50% of the footprint of the building, or is it related to purpose? An example given in the Explanatory Memorandum is that lavatories in a public library would not qualify, presumably because the facilities would be provided anyway, even though they also serve those nipping in in passing. What would be the situation if the lavatories were accessed through an independent entrance from the street?
More generally, should not more buildings serve the public need and the owners be recompensed? I can think of other buildings, such as old town halls, that rent out rooms that stay open for the public to access lavatories, even when there are no events. Should those types of facilities be given encouragement to stay open rather than being locked up, which is the usual trend?
I am glad that this Bill is before us, but I hope for more generosity in how it is applied.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome both Bills. I completely support the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, in what he said. When we are reforming the rating system, we absolutely need to follow the money and move in the wake of Amazon, and make sure that, at least where we can bite it, which is its distribution centres, it is paying a proper rate of tax. It is important that we look at the effect our tax system has on our businesses and that we do not disadvantage native UK businesses and advantage overseas ones, as we have been doing for years in our VAT system.
It is also important that, when it comes to rate relief measures, we look at exactly who needs the relief. As the noble Lord may know, I am saddened that the Government have excluded a category of businesses from the Covid rate relief, specifically those such as suppliers to exhibitions, which have to maintain large premises so that they can have a business when exhibitions resume again—maybe this year, but maybe not—but which are still subject to the full business rates arrangements.
I want to spend my time today on the lavatories Bill and support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said. Indeed, I was cheering through the noble Baroness’s speech. We need public lavatories in town centres. Think of what life would be like if there were none. It ought to be one of the Government’s underlying objectives to encourage their provision.
That the Government are relieving the rates on separate buildings that are just lavatories is good, but the most effective way of providing a public lavatory is in conjunction with a business. The loos in Victoria Station are there because the railway wants to look after its customers, and it is the same for the loos in John Lewis, restaurants, hotels and anywhere else that one might make use of them. These are the provisions that we ought to be encouraging. That the intricacies of the current rating system do not seem to offer any obvious way of saying that the value added to a building by including a public lavatory should not affect the rateable value of the building is no reason why we should not do our best, conversationally in Committee on the Bill, to get real legislation when we get rating reform to make sure that the provision of this public service is not something that we then tax.
Also, if we are giving rate relief to public lavatories, we should do so with some conditions, and there should be something in the Bill that allows the Government to impose those conditions.
Coming back specifically to what the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, a proper quantity of provision of separate women’s toilet facilities is absolutely crucial. She demonstrated in great detail why that is true, and I support everything she said. I shall be introducing an amendment in Committee to enable the Government, should they so wish, to impose conditions to say that a toilet would be zero-rated for rates only if it matched the conditions required by the Government.
Lord Greaves (LD) [V]
My Lords, coming last after so many people speaking, astonishingly, about public lavatories, which has delighted me, there is nothing substantially new that I can say. I will just talk about one or two things that have happened in my part of the world and about how things need remedying. Before doing so, I declare an interest as a member of Pendle Borough Council. I am not a vice-president of the Local Government Association; I used to be but I resigned in order not to have to declare an interest all the time—I am still sent the briefings. Like other speakers, I commend the National Association of Local Councils, which has provided so much good evidence and, in many ways, run this campaign. In a sense, I am not surprised that there have been so many speakers in this debate in the House of Lords. When you think about it, the demographic of the House suggests that more people here might be concerned about public lavatories than perhaps a younger generation might be.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said, almost at the beginning, the important thing is that there is a need everywhere. There has to be a sufficient number of lavatories in the right places, and many, unfortunately, are not of a sufficient quality; they are what she described as “a disgrace”. The noble Baroness said that there is a need for a national strategy. What worries me is that, if is too much of a national strategy, when national finances get into trouble and there are big cuts, it will be too easy to cut something such as public lavatories. I remind everybody that it was the nationalised railways that closed down a third of the network. I believe that local care and resilience are vital in very local services such as this.
I want briefly to tell a tale of two towns: one is Colne, my own town, and the other is Barnoldswick, next door. Both are on the Yorkshire border. Back in Mrs Thatcher’s time, there was government pressure for what we thought then were massive cuts—little did we know. The council officers thought that public lavatories were an easy thing to cut. They did not have to provide them and thought they were an anachronism in the modern age: people had cars, it was an old-fashioned service and the lavatories were expensive to maintain. They put a lot of pressure on councillors to close them down. In Colne, where I was chairman of the Colne and District area committee, we resisted this as far as we possibly could. Then I took a council holiday and another party took over in Colne and closed down almost all the public lavatories.
Then came austerity, and the cuts to our budgets that we never dreamed would happen did happen. The council as a whole decided that it could not continue to provide a public lavatory service; it simply had to stop doing some things because its budget over 10 years had been cut by half in real terms—I am not exaggerating. So we offered the remaining public lavatories to town and parish councils. Some were taken over, in particular by the very local parish councils, which have looked after their public lavatories—sometimes with volunteers and sometimes using the local odd-job person—and they have been very successful. They have looked after them much better than Pendle council ever did.
Barnoldswick Town Council, on the other hand—I give the plug that it was under the control of my party, the Liberal Democrats—took over the three public toilets in Barnoldswick and significantly increased the council tax precept, because that was the only way we could get extra money. Since then, the public toilets have been looked after by a local contractor from the town, with local care and maintenance. The service has been well received and successful, despite the fact that people are paying more money locally for it.
In Colne, where we have been denuded of almost all our public lavatories, the town council set up a community toilet scheme, which people have been talking about. It got going quite well and had some success, but unfortunately another party then took over the town council and lost interest in the scheme. As I said, it was quite successful but we learned the problems: if you rely on private premises to provide public facilities, they are not open on half-day closing, and quite a few people, for various reasons, are not happy about going into town-centre pubs to go to the toilet or for any other reason. It is not a perfect solution at all. The perfect solution has to be new provision where there is not any. In order to provide that—I think Colne Town Council would be willing to do that and to run it—money is needed to invest in new facilities.
This comes back to one of my beefs: that there is no conventional, easy way for town and parish councils to get capital funding from the Government. Capital grants for town and parish councils are needed if we are really serious about them taking over and providing new facilities. Indeed, when they take over facilities from the principal councils, improving and upgrading them, they have to have sources of money over and above the council tax, because there is a limit to how far people will pay extra council tax for their town and parish councils.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I draw Members’ attention to my relevant interests as set out in the register: as a councillor in Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the Minister for providing time last week for a discussion about these Bills.
We have had a wide-ranging and well-informed debate on both the Bills being considered. Both have in-principle support from Members on my Benches. As many noble Lords have said, the provision of publicly accessible public toilets is essential for many people, but my noble friend Lady Thomas has made a powerful case for the need for more accessible toilets to serve the specific needs of those with disabilities. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide an answer to her question about a government database of public needs. That would be of immense value, especially to those with particular needs.
That is amplified by a report from the Royal Society for Public Health published in 2019. It made a very strong case for a review of the number of accessible public toilets. The royal society investigated public toilets and discovered the number that have been closed by local authorities as a consequence of the severe cuts to public funding, the potential health impact of a lack of public toilets, as others have referenced, and the fact that many people plan their days out according to the accessibility, or not, of public loos.
My noble friend Lady Randerson spoke strongly and firmly in favour of equality of provision for women and talked about the long queues that we women have all experienced on a regular basis. Perhaps the Minister will be able to provide a positive response to her plea.
The same Royal Society for Public Health report also said that in 2018 there were no public toilets at all funded and maintained by local authorities in 37 council areas. That is of course a consequence of the years of significant cuts to local government funding, and this Bill is a bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
My noble friend Lord Wallace has raised the difficulties faced by tour groups visiting the world heritage site of Saltaire in the Bradford City Council area, where there are currently no public toilets for the coachloads that arrive. If only the Government could address the lack of public toilets and enable councils, through specific grants, to build them once more.
If the Government believe that public toilets are so important that they deserve special treatment in the form of this rate relief to help ensure their future, they should consider how the provision of publicly maintained toilets can be incentivised. For example, public toilets in town halls and libraries should be offered the same business rates relief, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, argued. I hope the Minister will be able to show how a system of apportionment can be devised that will achieve this end.
All speakers today have accepted the need for the provision of publicly funded, publicly owned toilets. I hope the Minister will be willing to consider extending the Bill to encompass more public toilets and, in particular, more fully accessible public toilets.
The headline of the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill, which concerns the timing of the revaluation of rates to be paid by businesses, is the introduction of new rates from April 2023. However, that means that the revaluation will be based on rental values as of April 2021. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who is an expert in this field, has helpfully exposed considerable failings in the current system. Can the Minister confirm that the assessment date for rateable values is subject to decision by a statutory instrument? If so, can he give the House any idea of the timing of such a statutory instrument?
A delay in assessing and then introducing new rateable values is understandable. However, this is tinkering at the edges, while our town centres are in deep trouble. As my noble friends, Lord Shipley, Lady Thornhill and Lady Bowles have pointed out, there is a desperate and urgent need for wholesale reform of the business rates system. There are two fundamental reasons for radical reform, as many noble Lords have referenced during this debate. First, the current system is based on an out-of-date concept of business being dependent on well-located property. In the retail sector, Amazon and hundreds of other such businesses have blown that idea out of the water. The growth of digital-only businesses adds to that argument. Secondly, income from business rates forms a large part of the spending of local government. Loss of business rates income, due to the move away from the high street, has a consequence for the funding available for local council services. Fewer shops means less income from business rates, and this is at a time when there is a growing demand for services due to the pandemic.
Businesses are naturally deeply concerned about the outcome of the next revaluation. My noble friend Lord Stunell made a strong case for the extension of the Covid rate relief, as there is a huge danger for retailers that there will be a gap between the ending of the Covid rate relief and the introduction of the new rateable values. I hope that the Minister can respond to this threat. I urge him to have particular concern for those towns across the country that were struggling even prior to the pandemic.
We on these Benches support these Bills in principle, but we know that there is scope for improvements, which we will bring as amendments in Committee on both Bills.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Secondly, I am very happy to support both Bills before us today, but I will want to explore options for improving both Bills in Committee.
On the public lavatories Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, set out what the Bill will achieve: 100% mandatory business rate relief for public lavatories in England and Wales, whether publicly or privately owned. The closure of public toilets over many years is a matter of concern for the general population, particularly those with specific needs—they could be medical needs but not exclusively so. I agree with my noble friend Lady Andrews that this is a long-overdue Bill—of course, it was lost previously due to the general election of 2019. As my noble friend said, Covid-19 has exposed deficiencies in matters that previously we probably all took for granted. I am sure that we will want to deal with them in this Bill.
An increasing number of people are affected by the state of Britain’s public toilets. These include those with disabilities, carers, the infirm, the elderly or people with babies and young children. As I said earlier, people of all ages who are coping with a range of issues and/or medical conditions are not finding adequate provision when they are out and about.
With the closure of bars, cafés and public buildings during the Covid-19 pandemic, we have also seen a reduction in the number of places where people can ask to use the toilet. Although these closures may be only temporary, they have highlighted a real issue for delivery drivers and others who work long shifts on the road getting food to the shops and delivering other essential supplies. Multi-drop goods delivery has always been very hard work. Let us pay tribute to those drivers, who have been outstanding in delivering in these difficult times and ensuring that food is on the shelves. They are struggling to find places where they can go to the toilet when working long hours.
When we are through the worst of this pandemic, we should keep washing our hands with the same increased frequency as we have all been doing in recent months. It would keep us all safer and help prevent the spread of all sorts of infections in the future. We need to be conscious of the age profile of our population and the needs of its older members.
In the past, Britain has—and will do so again in the future—welcomed many millions of tourists to this wonderful country. It is something that we all want to increase and build on. However, it will place further pressure on our existing facilities. Sometimes, these facilities do not give the best impression; for example, when you visit a tourist area and find that facilities are non-existent or, if you find them, they are not in a particularly good condition and do not have a proper cleaning rota.
I am, however, pleased with the progress that has been made in making toilets free at all the mainline railway stations. London Bridge is a station that I use frequently. I have been impressed with the work that has been going on there to make the toilets safe to use during the pandemic. I have not been through Marylebone station recently—the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, mentioned it, as he did in our debate in 2019—but I hope that they have now taken away the charge there.
We should all be concerned about public health, hygiene and environmental standards in toilet facilities. I very much agree with the British Toilet Association, which has been mentioned many times in this debate, in its campaign to improve these essential facilities. Good access to toilets that the public can use is all about health and well-being, quality, social inclusion, privacy and public decency.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in his comments on Bradford and Saltaire; I know the area fairly well, although not as well as him, and I thought the points he made were very valid.
Public toilets must comply with parts 1 and 4 of British Standard 6465, BS 8300, parts M and R of the building regulations and other requirements. It is all about keeping us safe and well.
The British Toilet Association has done some excellent work with the Changing Places consortium, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, and others. The campaign is about the ability of the quarter of a million people in need of Changing Places toilets to get out and about and enjoy the day, which many of us have taken for granted in the past. It is important that, when we go out—when we move on from the pandemic—we can use toilets safely and in comfort. For many that will require a Changing Places toilet, with the adjustable bench, hoist and so on; we need to ensure people with profound disabilities can go out and use them with dignity.
I congratulate Tesco, which has just opened its 100th Changing Places toilet. The Tower of London also has its first Changing Places toilet, put in by Historic Royal Palaces. Again, many congratulations—it is probably the oldest public building in Britain with a Changing Places toilet.
We are in a lockdown, but that will come to an end. When life returns to something like we knew before, we need to ensure that we have legislation in place—possibly with amendments—to ensure that people can enjoy their time outside without any concerns or worries about adequate toilet facilities.
Why cannot any organisation that installs a Changing Places or other disabled toilet facility in its premises, which is available to the public, make use of some sort of business rate relief? Maybe it could be a double relief or revert to 100% relief? I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who asked why organisations that let people come in and use their toilets cannot have the benefit of some sort of relief. We will want to explore those issues in Committee and expand this Bill to make things better.
As I have said, this is a public health issue, which we might not have taken as much notice of before the pandemic. We need to take notice of it today. Will the Minister set out how this measure will increase the provision of facilities for women and user groups such as wheelchair users, the elderly and people with young children and families with medical conditions? The way in which this Bill is designed does not do that at this stage, but perhaps we can ensure in Committee that it does.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, made a powerful case for highlighting the needs of disabled people. What problem would there be in saying that, by investing in facilities for disabled people, young children and families could not actually attract extra relief?
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, made the very valid point about the issues facing women and men with children and the general problem we have seen, particularly during the pandemic, about the availability of toilets. I mentioned additional reliefs; that would be one way of encouraging provision for disabled people, for example. I intend to bring these issues back in Committee.
A number of noble Lords made points about lavatories in town halls, libraries and other public sites. Again, we should look at those in Committee.
The “Can’t Wait” card is a very good initiative. It always annoys me to see places that have signs up telling you that “You’re not welcome—you can’t use the toilet”. We need the situation to be much friendlier and to recognise that some people cannot wait; they do need to use the toilets. I remember trying to find the public toilet in Stratford-upon-Avon in the summer of 2019. There were signs up pointing to it but I could not find the thing—it was literally impossible—so I went into the theatre and they let me use the toilet there. A place such as Stratford-upon-Avon relies on tourism. There were coaches of people and tourists everywhere, but it seemed that the council had got to the point where it relied on people going to use toilets in bars, restaurants and cafés. Many let them in, but I did not think that is right. If people are letting them in, why can they not have a benefit from providing that public service?
I also very much support the calls from the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Addington, about support for local sports clubs. Thinking about where I live, a place such as the Francis Drake Bowls Club is that sort of organisation, as is Lewisham Borough Football Club, which plays on Ladywell Arena—I think the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will know it from his time as a Member of Parliament for that area. There is also Fisher Athletic football club. I must also mention Millwall Community Trust, which I am delighted to be a trustee of, and the work we are doing down at Surrey Docks stadium and the facilities next to the Den.
I support the Bill but, as I have outlined, I will table some amendments in Committee where we can improve it. The Bill is narrow in scope but very welcome. We will see if we can improve it, particularly to reflect on how life going forward after the lockdown may have things in it that we did not all focus on before.
Moving on to the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill, I am very supportive of the points made by the Local Government Association. As we have heard, this will move the revaluation date to 1 April 2023, based on property values on 1 April 2021. The legislation keeps the period between future valuations at five years although previous Bills, which were of course lost, sought to reduce it to three years. When the Minister responds to the debate, can he tell us whether that proposal has been dropped for good? The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and others raised this in their contributions.
Closer working with the valuation office and local authorities is very much needed, as is reducing the backlog of appeals. As we have heard, according to the latest Valuation Tribunal for England statistics, there are 40,000 unresolved appeals from 2010—I repeat, 40,000. Councils are having to hold money to one side as these have not yet been determined, and this cannot carry on. I support the calls from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and others: this matter really must be dealt with sooner rather than later.
I support the call from the LGA to see reforms to ensure that appeals can be received no later than six months after a new rating list has come into force. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was right to say that we need root-and-branch reform of the business rate system. Our high streets are in crisis and we need a sustainable, long-term solution to the problem. We should make sure that companies all pay their fair share. I endorse my noble friend Lord Hain’s comments urging the Government to think big. My noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan also drew the attention of the House to the wider issues that this welcome measure will address but which the Government do need to deal with.
Many noble Lords mentioned the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. He made that very valid point about high streets and ensuring that online businesses pay their fair share, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, made some excellent points about support for the high street, small shops and towns such as Louth in Lincolnshire, which I know well. As I said earlier, tourism will once again be an important part of our economy. We have to have the shops for tourists, as well as local people, to visit. As I said, the big online businesses—the Amazons—have to pay their fair share, and the Government need to ensure that they do so.
Finally, my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick made a point about the correlation between business rates and the prosperity of our towns—their revenue-creating potential. As my noble friend said, we need root and branch reform.
This has been an excellent debate. I am delighted that there were many more speakers than when the House looked at the public lavatories Bill in 2019. Noble Lords have made fantastic contributions—we are clearly going to have a very interesting Committee stage for both Bills. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to today’s debate. I shall do my best to respond to the nearly 30 speeches that preceded this final one, in relation to both Bills, starting with the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill.
What we have heard today reflects what the Government have already been hearing from ratepayers: that frequent revaluations are of great importance to the fairness of the business rate system. It is therefore only in the face of exceptional circumstances that this Government have taken steps to postpone the implementation of the next revaluation. As I have said, we remain fully committed to frequent revaluations, and considerations of the timings of these form part of the Treasury’s ongoing fundamental review of business rates.
As I set out earlier, the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill will also change the date by which draft rateable values must be published, ahead of the revaluation, from 30 September to 31 December in the preceding year. I recognise that there are concerns that this change will reduce the notice that ratepayers have of their business rate bills for the following year. However, rateable values are only one of a number of factors needed to estimate a rates bill, alongside the new multiplier and details of any transitional arrangements. Historically, these have been confirmed at the time of the autumn fiscal event and, as such, the measures included in the Bill allow for the publication of draft rateable values to be made alongside these decisions.
Of course, moving the date of the draft rating list also has implications for local government, which has a share in business rates income through the business rates retention scheme. On this point, I assure the House that we intend to make any necessary adjustments within the business rates retention system to ensure that locally retained income is, as far as is practicable, unaffected by the revaluation. My department has held discussions with local government representatives and will continue to do so to ensure that the sector has what it needs in order to issue new bills in a timely manner.
I will now address some specific comments. I credit the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who gave a tour d’horizon of local government finance reform, starting with the Layfield review, which took place over 40 years ago—I was still at primary school at the time—and moving on to the Lyons review. This helped explain the long history of local government finance and how the reform of business rates has been approached since their inception in 1990.
I assure my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the fundamental review of business rates will look specifically at reliefs. They made strong points about community and grass-roots sports. The provision has not cost the Exchequer anything. We are not talking about a stade municipal, but they need support at this difficult time. The noble Lords made their points very eloquently. I will make sure that I take their case to the Treasury and do my best for them.
I also point out that the fundamental review of business rates has not shifted; it was always due to end in spring of this year. It will also look at alternative ways of taxation. A number of noble Lords raised the move to online sales and mentioned specific retailers that seem to be making a whole lot of money. I am sure that the fundamental review will look at alternative taxes to capture the shift in our shopping habits.
I will do my very best on some of the other points raised. My noble friend Lord Bourne and the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Reid of Cardowan, mentioned frequency. We need frequent valuations to ensure that business rates bills are up to date, but we recognise that doing a revaluation is quite an undertaking. Balance is important. We remain committed to frequent revaluations, but this is a hiccup in the road because of quite extraordinary events.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, mentioned transitional relief and, under the current business rates system, we are required by law to provide transitional arrangements after each revaluation. The next scheme to apply following the 2023 revaluation will be designed once revaluation data is available, so it has not yet been designed.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and my noble friend Lord Naseby raised the specific issue of the antecedent valuation date, or the AVD. I think the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, mentioned it on behalf of the Association of Convenience Stores. We recognise that business groups such as the ACS have asked us to consider reducing the gap between the valuation date for the revaluation, the so-called AVD and the date that revaluation takes effect. This would ensure that rateable values follow the rental property market more closely. The revaluation is an extensive exercise, requiring assessment by the VOA of 2 million valuations and this takes time. We have to balance the need for up-to-date valuations against the need to prepare accurate valuations. This is all about ensuring that balance.
To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, 1 April 2021 has already been set by statutory instrument, which I believe was laid before Parliament on 6 August 2020. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned the VOA’s difficulties in dealing with the appeals case load. I think the figure of 40,000 appeals was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. The Treasury continues to provide the VOA with the resources required to successfully deliver the valuations and property advice needed to support taxation and benefits. The Treasury is working closely with the VOA and its sponsor department, HMRC, to understand the VOA’s resource requirements. Funding requirements to deliver the appeals case load and the next revaluation will be considered as part of those ongoing discussions.
I will make one point of clarification on the £10 billion of business rates relief mentioned. That is over half of business rate payers not paying any business rates at all. Will that fall on local government? Absolutely not. These costs fall on the Treasury and are not borne by local government at all. In fact, the new burdens doctrine means that the administration of reliefs is also captured and borne by the Treasury, so it will not affect local council finances in that regard.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about when the Valuation Office Agency can clear the appeals it has received because of Covid. We are aware that the Valuation Office Agency has received a large number of checks and challenges from rate payers who believe that their rateable value in the current rating list should be reduced to reflect the impact of the pandemic. I understand that the VOA is currently considering these cases, but no decisions have been taken yet.
A number of noble Lords raised fundamental reform. It is fair to say that that is not part of this narrow Bill, but there is no doubt that the fundamental review in spring could be a springboard to the reform mentioned by a number of noble Lords. Only time will tell, however, and I do not want to give a sense of direction until we have had the benefit of that review in the spring.
The second Bill before the House today may be small but it is also crucial to the local authorities and private organisations providing public lavatories up and down the country. I am aware of concerns that the Bill applies only to those public toilets that are separately assessed for business rates.
The Government’s policy aims have been clear: this Bill is focused on providing targeted support specifically in circumstances where there are unlikely to be other publicly available facilities and where removing the cost of business rates could help keep facilities open. That narrowness of scope is entirely designed to ensure that we stop seeing more closures of public facilities. Widening the relief to cover all public toilets would significantly increase the cost of the relief and be less likely to target resources efficiently.
Subject to Royal Assent, the Bill will provide a mandatory 100% relief on all separately assessed toilets, including accessible lavatories, whether publicly or privately run, effectively removing business rates altogether for these properties. In meeting the commitment made in the 2020 Budget, the relief will be applied retrospectively from 1 April 2020, ensuring that benefits apply as soon as possible. Local authorities will be responsible for implementing the relief and will be fully compensated in the usual way.
I will now comment on the specific points raised by noble Lords. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her extraordinarily detailed history of public toilet provision; the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for the virtual tour of public toilets in our stations; and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for his hygiene history of Saltaire. Much could be gleaned from those contributions.
I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, that I am not sure that the answer to this question is a national strategy authored in Whitehall, and I share some of the scepticism of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, partly because there is such a difference in public toilet provision throughout the country. The answer lies closer to the town hall than to Whitehall—respectfully, that is my view on the matter, notwithstanding the importance of this as a public policy point.
Turning to the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, nobly backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, it is incredibly important that we have fully accessible public toilets. It is something you expect in an advanced western democracy such as ours; it ensures the full participation of all members of our community, which is particularly important in our town centres, which thrive on footfall. We need to make sure that they are accessible to all. That is the basis on which the Changing Places funding was committed in the Budget. I will be able to provide noble Lords with more detail on how the £30 million has been committed—the details of this funding will be made available in due course. This is incredibly important.
The vibrancy of our town centres and high streets is a personal concern of mine. Anyone who spends any time travelling from Fulham, say—we could have said Southwark, but I will take the example of Fulham—to the central activities zone knows the huge impact that this pandemic has had not just on our town centres throughout the country, but particularly on this great global city. I note the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Reid of Cardowan, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and others—and the point about high streets made by my noble friend Lord Naseby and others. It is incredibly important that we think about how our high streets and town centres throughout the country can bounce back once this wretched pandemic allows us to be a little freer to move and enjoy life as we once did.
The answer lies not just in business rates but in supporting our high streets. We have a high streets fund and we need to think about flexibility in planning permissions. There are a number of policy tweaks that, I am sure, will make a difference; it is not just about this Bill. However, the point made by noble Lords is incredibly important.
Finally, I have noted the many helpful points raised by my fellow Peers, and I anticipate a plethora of amendments to keep us busy at the next stage. As always, I appreciate the knowledge and expertise in this House, and I am sure that we can all agree that we welcome and support the aims of these Bills. I commend both Bills to the House.
Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill
Monday 18th January 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill 2019-21 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 3 September 2020 - (3 Sep 2020)