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
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
People who are advised to shield and are unable to work from home may be furloughed. Those who are not furloughed may be eligible for a range of other financial support, including statutory sick pay and new-style employment and support allowance, both of which remain payable from day one of a claim. Where eligible, a claim may also be made to universal credit.
Justin Madders
Many disabled people are on legacy benefits, which of course means they have not had the £20 a week universal credit uplift that has been made available. As the Government did not vote against our motion last week to retain that payment, I presume that they understand the value of retaining it, so will they now do the right thing and ensure that all disabled people have access to that extra cash?
Justin Tomlinson
We have shown as a Government the support we are providing, including over £9 billion of extra welfare support. Those on legacy benefits will have benefited from the annual uprating. Depending on individual circumstances, if a claimant would be better on universal credit, they can look to transfer over.
Bill Esterson [V]
There are 2.2 million people who are having to shield. Many disabled people cannot work from home and do not qualify for furlough, and sick pay is only £95.85, which does not even come close to the definition of doing what it takes to look after people, which the Prime Minister tried to use on Thursday. May I push the Minister not to give the same tired answer about what he has done for other people but to answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) has just asked? When are the Government going to give support to disabled people so that they can be protected and stay at home?
Justin Tomlinson
The level of statutory sick pay is just part of the safety net; people may also be eligible for new-style ESA or universal credit, and for those disabled people who are looking to work from home, we have extended the support that is available through Access to Work, allowing for people to have additional support for their needs or equipment. That is something that we will keep in place beyond covid.
Mr Virendra Sharma [V]
I thank the Minister for his response, but it was not very satisfactory, so I will give him another opportunity to give a more concrete answer. When will he end the discrimination against disabled people and offer the same uplift that universal credit claimants have been given to legacy claimants on employment and support allowance and jobseeker’s allowance, which disproportionately support the disabled?
Justin Tomlinson
Further to the principle that if a claimant could be better off on UC than on legacy benefits they have the ability to apply to go on to UC, as a Government we have increased support for people with disabilities through the main disability benefits by an extra £3 billion in real terms since 2010. We are proud of our record.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
But people claiming severe disability premium cannot switch to universal credit; they are not allowed to. The costs facing many in that group have increased by more than average during the pandemic. Why is that particular group denied the £20 a week increase?
Justin Tomlinson
The SDP gateway comes to an end in a couple of days, so those claimants will also be able to see whether they would be better off under universal credit. However, as I said, it is part of the wider support available, and those with disabilities in particular will have benefited from the annual uprating increases in disability living allowance, personal independence payment and attendance allowance. That is how we have delivered the additional £3 billion-worth of support in real terms for those with disabilities and health conditions.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
May I just say how utterly disappointing it is still to have no uplift to legacy benefits 10 months into this crisis? Since the start of the pandemic, shielding people have been an afterthought. The increased costs they are facing are doing untold damage to their lives, and the Government’s solution of claiming statutory sick pay is woefully inadequate. Will the Government finally do the right thing and ensure that shielding people and people having to isolate are furloughed? Guaranteed furlough from day one would help people stay home and support businesses up and down the country.
Justin Tomlinson
I would hope the shadow Minister welcomes the continued and extensive support the Government have provided through schemes such as furlough, the additional £9 billion in welfare support, and, specifically for those who are clinically extremely vulnerable, the second £32 million additional support provided through local authorities to help those following the shielding guidance. In these critical times, certainty is vital. Perhaps the shadow team should reflect on that with their random decision to try to cancel universal credit, which has stood up so well to support those people in the most need during these unprecedented times.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The proportion of individuals capped remains very low in relation to the overall UC case load and exemptions continue to apply. There remains a statutory duty to review the cap within this Parliament. However, we are in an unusual economic period, and any decision will need to consider potentially counter-intuitive and shifting trends.
Kevin Brennan [V]
I thank the Minister for that answer, but at a time when all of us know constituents who are struggling through the crisis which has brought them such hardship through no fault of their own, are the Government really going to impose the benefit cap on tens of thousands of families with children when the so-called “grace period” comes to an end? Is that really true? If it is, can she tell me this: how is that fair?
Mims Davies
The benefit cap provides fairness for hard-working tax-paying households as a clear incentive to move into a job where possible. Universal credit households are exempt from the cap if the household earnings are at least £604 a month. I reiterate to the House that the amount of individuals capped remains very low in comparison to the UC case load, at around 3%.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
Her Majesty’s Treasury’s analysis has shown that the Government’s comprehensive £280 billion response to the pandemic, including a temporary and emergency £6 billion increase to welfare support specifically designed to help low-income families, has supported the poorest working households the most, with the poorest 10% of working households seeing no income reduction.
Wes Streeting [V]
It has been clear from what Department for Work and Pensions Ministers have said to the House and in the media that they understand the real difference the £20 a week universal credit uplift has made to some of the poorest families. Given that we know withdrawing that uplift will plunge huge numbers of people into poverty, including 300,000 children, why are Ministers having such a difficult time persuading the Chancellor to do the right thing by the poorest families and tackling child poverty?
Will Quince
We are in active discussions with Her Majesty’s Treasury regarding the £20 universal credit uplift. No one in this House wants to see anyone in poverty. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s ask and it comes from the right place, but I would just push back a little and say that, over and above the £100 billion we spend annually on benefits for working-age people to support those facing the most financial disruption throughout this pandemic, we have invested several billion pounds more. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has an unenviable task, but I point out to the House that my right hon. Friend has a proven track record of stepping up and supporting the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. I have no doubt he will continue to do so.
Chris Elmore [V]
I understand, without a shadow of a doubt, that the Minister cares deeply about this issue, but I listened to the Secretary of State this morning on broadcast media saying that she was not able to set a particular date because of the active conversations in the Treasury. The Minister just gave the same answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). Why is the Chancellor not listening? Is he tin-eared on this issue? We are talking about 600,000 extra children in poverty since this Government came into office in 2010. The £20 uplift provides certainty and these people need that security desperately. We cannot be a nation where there are more and more children living in absolute poverty, and more and more families living without savings. That simply is not good enough. I ask the Minister to challenge the Chancellor and ensure we stop more children going into poverty.
Will Quince
As I have said, the universal credit uplift is still in place for the remainder of this tax year. Discussions remain ongoing with Her Majesty’s Treasury, and a decision on the future of the universal credit and working tax credit uplift will be taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in due course.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) [V]
But the number of children in poverty has increased by 600,000 after housing costs since 2010, and that has been in substantial part due to the £9 billion that the Government have withdrawn from social security since 2015 alone. The universal credit uplift and other measures taken since the beginning of the pandemic will have reduced the number of children living in poverty to 300,000, but can the Minister confirm that if the Government proceed with ending the £20 UC uplift, together with rising unemployment, that will mean, by the end of this Parliament, that they will have seen 700,000 more children cast into poverty than at the beginning?
Will Quince
We take the issue of poverty, and tackling poverty, incredibly seriously, and as I made clear, active discussions are ongoing with Her Majesty’s Treasury. But I have to say that I fundamentally disagree with the approach of Labour party: simply throwing money at our benefits system—an approach that, under the last Labour Government, left a generation trapped on benefits, trapped in poverty and incentivised not to work by punitive cliff edges in the legacy benefit system. We will not be going back to those dark old days. We know that work is the best route out of poverty and, under universal credit—our modern, dynamic, agile system—work always pays.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Tackling poverty and levelling up opportunity will always be a priority for this Government, while using universal credit, which works for the labour market, to encourage people to move into and progress in work. There are several measures of poverty in the annual publication “Households below average income”—which is based on the annual family resources survey—of which absolute poverty before housing costs is the measure on which the Government most focus. Since 2010, 400,000 people have been lifted out of absolute poverty, including 100,000 children, and additionally, the rates of combined material deprivation and low income for children were at their joint lowest, at 11%, in 2018-19.
Alan Brown [V]
Child poverty is a disgrace in the UK and it is strongly linked to welfare payments. Quite clearly, more people are going to be pushed into poverty if the Tory Government continue with their planned cut to the £20 uplift in universal credit and the working tax credit. Ministers have ducked this all day, but given that the Government did not vote against the motion last week, they have a duty to honour that motion, so will the Secretary of State confirm what discussions she has had with the Chancellor about retaining the vital £20 uplift?
Dr Coffey
I updated the House in November and did say that we would be reviewing this in the new year. That is exactly what we are doing, and I am actively considering with the Chancellor the best way to continue to try to support people who are impacted on strongly by the economic impacts of this pandemic.
Stephen Flynn [V]
Between November 2019 and November 2020, the number of universal credit claimants in Aberdeen South had risen by 188.7%, and any move to cut the £20 universal credit uplift would have a catastrophic impact that would ultimately exacerbate poverty levels. So let us try again: can the Secretary of State confirm that she has made personal representations to the Chancellor on maintaining the full £20 uplift, and if so, and he chooses to ignore her, will she resign?
Dr Coffey
As often happens, as the hon. Gentleman will know from the Scottish Government Administration, Government Ministers tend to have discussions about policy while they are considering it. It is important, recognising the scale of the support that the Government have given to families, businesses and so on, that we continue to make these important decisions based on evidence in a competent, considered and compassionate way. That is exactly what the Chancellor and I will be doing in our recommendations for the Prime Minister.
Patricia Gibson [V]
Unless the universal credit and working tax credit uplift is made permanent, a further 60,000 people in Scotland, including 20,000 children, will be pushed into poverty. If this support is not extended beyond March, and if tackling poverty is a priority for the Secretary of State’s Government, as she says, will she set out what alternative and additional measures her Government intend to bring forward to tackle child poverty, which shamefully still affects 30% of children across the UK?
Dr Coffey
I have already set out the approach and discussions that the hon. Lady can be assured I am continuing to have with other Ministers, including the Chancellor. It is fair to say that we are very conscious that one of the ways to try and help people get out of poverty is through the plan for jobs. While I am conscious that there are not lots of jobs at the moment—although we estimate that there are over half a million vacancies—we want to try and make sure that people are ready to take advantage of the opportunities, particularly when we have seen the number of workless households sadly increase.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
The Secretary of State suggested that her approach to universal credit is evidence-based, yet the Government dismissed the Select Committee on Work and Pensions report on this issue. Then she described anti-poverty measures as a priority, yet removing the universal credit uplift would plunge 200,000 children across the UK into poverty. If the UK Government make the smaller one-off payment that has been suggested, it will provide no security and do nothing to help those who first claim UC after the payment has been made. Alongside the discussions on universal credit, has the Secretary of State suggested to the Chancellor any action to end the discrimination against those on legacy benefits who have seen their support rise by just 1.7% during the pandemic?
Dr Coffey
People on legacy benefits can transfer to universal credit, and the final barrier to that is being lifted this Wednesday. I encourage people to consider that move, because we are confident as a Department that the majority of people would be better off. I remind the House that Parliament voted to end both legacy benefits and tax credits and to move to universal credit because it is a welfare system that is agile and incentivises people to work when they can.
Neil Gray [V]
So no action on legacy benefits, which means that the active discrimination from the UK Government against sick and disabled people, who disproportionately claim them, will continue. Robert Burns said:
“Whatever mitigates the woes or increases the happiness of others, this is my criterion of goodness; but whatever injures society at large or any individual in it, then this is my measure of iniquity.”
If the uplift to universal credit is not made permanent, the Secretary of State will be presiding over a system that not only discriminates against disabled people but in which out-of-work support falls to its lowest ever level relative to wages, confirming Burns’s definition of iniquity. In that scenario, how in all conscience could she remain in post?
Dr Coffey
Tonight, many people right across the United Kingdom will be celebrating Burns night, recognising the strength of the poet and the prose he delivers. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman’s comments fail to hit with me right now. The reality is that we have supported the welfare system with an extra £7 billion in the past year. We continue to spend more on benefits and we continue to spend more to try to help people back into work. This is a Government who are on the side of people, recognising the difficult situation that we face. As I have said before, as long as the Opposition keep trashing universal credit it will be no wonder that people do not realise that many of them would be better off moving tomorrow. I would encourage people to look into that.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Kickstart has got off to a flying start and I am delighted to inform the House that to date 120,000 kickstart jobs have been approved and 2,000 young people have already started. Around 10,000 jobs are available to young people now and I am expecting a further 33,000 or so to be placed fairly soon while we work with employers to finalise the detail of the job offer. We recognise that young people have been greatly impacted by the pandemic, which is why kickstart is such a pivotal part of our plan for jobs to help them secure a stable footing on the career ladder.[Official Report, 4 February 2021, Vol. 688, c. 7MC.]
Chris Clarkson
Kickstart is a fantastic programme that has created 120,000 opportunities that will benefit young people in Heywood and Middleton and around the country, but of course the core jobcentre offering will be incredibly important as we move to recovery. What measures are being taken to ensure that that is available to people of all ages around the country?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right. While kickstart is the flagship of our plan for jobs, we are well on track to recruit the extra 13,500 work coaches. Throughout the pandemic and across the country, work coaches have continued to provide support directly and digitally. Helping people to get ready to get back into work is a top priority and that is why other parts of the plan for jobs, including stepping up the number of places on sector-based work academy programmes, boosting job entry targeted support and launching job funding support nationally this month, are how we are helping everybody to try to get back into work.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Today, the DWP announced that more than 120,000 kickstart jobs had been created, but the Secretary of State has said that 10,000 placements are available now, and the Financial Times has reported that it is because of the Secretary of State’s delays that the other 33,000 have not yet come on stream. How on earth can it be that fewer than 2,000 young people have started placements to date? This scheme was announced six months ago and over half a million young people are out of work. Is it not the Secretary of State who needs to move up a gear so that we can secure our economy and get our young people into the jobs that they need?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady is right to ask why only 2,000 people have started. We have had a record number of applications and we have actually created more job placements than the future jobs fund ever achieved. We are trying to turn that into job starts. There are certain things going on where we are trying to roll out those jobs around the country, but I can assure her that this pipeline of jobs, which will take us right through to the end of the year as we are taking on more, is there to try to ensure that we find people the right sort of kickstarter role. We are also making sure that, as well as having covid-secure arrangements, the training wraparound support is high-quality.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
Work coaches are empowered to support claimants through the best and most appropriate channels, whether online, by phone or in person, with jobcentres remaining open to those who need extra support and are unable to interact with us on the phone or digitally.
Sir David Amess [V]
A number of my constituents in Southend West who suffer from mental or physical disabilities do not have access to computers or the internet. Many of them rely on in-person support in normal times, through places such as the citizens advice bureau or the wonderful Kings Money Advice Centre. With many in these vulnerable groups unfortunately now shielding, what assurances can my hon. Friend give me that support is being made accessible to those without online access?
Justin Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for supporting his most vulnerable claimants and his local advocacy groups. As I have set out, we will look at the most appropriate way to communicate with claimants, including by phone or through advocates, where they do not have access to the internet.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
We continue to engage with employers of all sizes to create high-quality placements for our young people to get their start on the employment ladder, and to make it even simpler, from 3 February we will remove the 30-job minimum for job applications, giving new applicants the choice to apply directly or via one of over 600 excellent approved kickstart gateways.
Katherine Fletcher [V]
As you well know, Mr Speaker, South Ribble has many brilliant small businesses that are keen to provide a kickstart opportunity for a young person. For example, Mark Wright Landscapes got in touch saying that it was worried that it was too small to participate. In that instance, I was able to direct them to the great North and Western Lancashire chamber of commerce, which acts as a gateway. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking that small business and encouraging others in Lancashire and beyond to create a job and give an opportunity through kickstart to as many young people as possible?
Mims Davies
I would very much like to thank my hon. Friend for raising the opportunities for smaller businesses, and the great team at the North and Western Lancashire chamber of commerce for their hard work and the services they provide as a gateway organisation. This is helping many sole traders and employers in her constituency to support our young people to take up these kickstart roles, ensuring that young people have that vital wraparound support, getting them on to the career ladder and, above all, grasping future work opportunities.
Rushanara Ali [V]
With youth unemployment set to reach 1 million and 600,000 already unemployed, can the Minister provide some updates on how her Department will meet the 250,000 kickstart programme target that it stated it would meet? The numbers that the Secretary of State has set out today are worryingly low. Will she also consider removing the six-month requirement, where a young person has to be unemployed for six months before they qualify for the kickstart programme?
Mims Davies
The young person needs to be on universal credit and working with our excellent work coaches. In respect of Hoxton and Poplar, which cover the hon. Lady’s constituency, we are recruiting 27 new work coaches in Hoxton and 67 in Poplar. Since the end of September, we have been working with the new Tower Hamlets youth hub, with local employers and gateways bringing opportunities. I encourage the hon. Lady to visit her local jobcentre to see what has happened there in the past year, because I do not believe she has visited and think that would put her mind at rest.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
This Conservative Government and I, as the employment Minister, are committed to providing support to help our young people to move into work and avoid the long-term scarring effects of unemployment, both during the pandemic and as we recover from its impact. Our plan for jobs includes an expanded DWP youth offer, kickstart and more than 100 new youth hubs to assist young people to move into meaningful, sustained employment.
Alec Shelbrooke [V]
Small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency have raised concerns about the time it takes to apply for the kickstart scheme. What action is the Department taking to ensure that applications are processed as quickly as possible?
Mims Davies
The Department worked at pace to launch the kickstart scheme in September, with the first applications open in November. Our aim is to take forward applications within one month, but it can take longer if we require additional information. We expect the situation to improve as we adopt processes and embed learnings from the thousands of employers and hundreds of gateways that have joined the scheme early on. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the application from Fotofabric Ltd in his constituency has now been approved.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
Our plan for jobs is providing a range of vital, tailored employment support for all jobseekers who are looking to move sector; targeting support for those impacted by the pandemic; and linking into local recovery plans. The plan includes DWP’s job finding support, or JFS; sector-based work academy programmes, or SWAPs; job entry targeted support, or JETS; and our new restart programme. It will also utilise the forthcoming UK shared prosperity fund.
Rob Roberts [V]
Back in 2013, my constituency of Delyn had an unemployment rate of 5.2%; thanks to successful aspirational Conservative policies, this was down to just 3% before the pandemic took hold, but now sits at around 6%. With some sectors—particularly tourism and hospitality—more severely impacted than others, will my hon. Friend confirm that, despite many things being in the hands of a Welsh Government who, I hope, are in their final months in power, the UK Government will continue to provide support and generate opportunities for my constituents to get back into work as soon as possible?
Mims Davies
I am happy to confirm that DWP will continue to work hard to support people like my hon. Friend’s constituents. I know that the staff in his three local jobcentres are already delivering training, mentoring circles and kickstart prep courses with partners such as Google, Amazon and the Prince’s Trust, as well as working to develop new resources to help to support local jobseekers.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
Local authorities apply the “more than minimal” test as part of the process for determining housing benefit for supported accommodation. No assessment has been made of the effectiveness of the “more than minimal” test for care, support and supervision in housing benefit; however, we are reviewing the guidance for local authorities to help improve consistency in decision making.
Kerry McCarthy
The Minister and I have talked about this, so he will know that I have real concerns about the exploitation of vulnerable people in the supported housing sector by landlords who know that they can charge much higher rents by providing only “more than minimal” support. Will the Minister look at the regulations to see whether they can be tightened up? I know that pilots are going on and consideration is being given to whether we can regulate supported housing, and that might be one way to do it.
Will Quince
The hon. Lady is right to point out that work is under way in this policy area. The DWP Minister in the Lords remains responsible for the policy; she is offering to all MPs and peers a session on 24 February at which they can raise any areas of concern, so I will make sure the Lady is invited to that. We recognise that there are problem areas and I share a number of the hon. Lady’s concerns, but it is important to stress that the majority of supported housing is provided by well-run, registered social landlords with a strong social mission.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The £170 million covid winter grant scheme is supporting disadvantaged people through the challenging winter months to the end of March with food and utilities. The first wave of funding was given to councils in November. The next tranche of payments is due next month and support for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales is already included in the pre-agreed Barnett funding. I have been pleased to see councils go beyond just issuing food vouchers. For example, in Telford and the Wrekin, where a large number of pupils had reportedly been going to school without a warm coat, some of the funding will help ensure that these disadvantaged children are warmly dressed for the cold winter months.
David Johnston [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for that statement. As well as providing those on low incomes with food boxes, the charity SOFEA in my constituency works with utility companies to try to drive down the costs of people’s bills, recognising that food is not their only challenge. I am hugely supportive of the covid winter fund, but does my right hon. Friend agree that what happens to those on low incomes is not just about what the Government do, and that we need all businesses to look at what more they can do to help drive down the cost of living?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that all businesses can play a part. I praise those mobile phone and internet companies that have offered low-cost packages to people while they are on benefits. In particular there is the warm home discount scheme where my Department works closely with utility companies on data matching. Nearly 1 million eligible claimants received the £140 discount automatically and did not need to apply.
Daniel Kawczynski
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, by providing funding to support families with children of all ages, including pre-school children, the covid winter grant scheme will give local authorities the flexibility they need to ensure that no child goes hungry this winter?
Dr Coffey
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The terms of the condition of the grants to councils were clear that they needed to reach out to support children of all ages who are disadvantaged. Councils have the ties and the knowledge that make them well placed to identify that. I commend Shropshire County Council, which has received £850,000 over the scheme, for drawing on this information to target its support to help children of all ages, including pre-schoolers and care leavers who are exactly the groups that I hoped would also benefit from the support.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Too many pensioners face a harsh and challenging winter. Deep concerns about the high rates of coronavirus have been made worse by the effects of the severe weather and isolation from the usual networks of support. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that the Government will take urgent action both to raise take-up of pension credit for those most in need and to take other steps to protect pensioners? The Government have dithered for too long, and they need to set out a comprehensive package of support for our vulnerable pensioners.
Dr Coffey
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place and congratulate him on his new role. On supporting pensioners, I genuinely believe that the Government have gone a very long way with the triple lock. We continue to see that boost with the basic state pension. He may not be aware of the extensive advertising in GP surgeries, post offices and similar that took place in 2020 to encourage people to take up the pension credit. We will continue to consider how that can be improved.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
Since the start of the pandemic, the welfare safety net has been there to support nearly 6 million claimants. Parliament has voted for universal credit and to end legacy benefits. The nationwide roll-out of universal credit was successfully completed in December 2018, and we are committed to ensuring that those on legacy benefits move across in a safe and secure way.
Mr Holden
I thank the Minister for his answer. It is quite clear that, during the coronavirus pandemic, alongside our massive vaccine programme and world-leading support of £4,000 a head—£280 billion in total—universal credit has been a real success. I praise the officials in Crook and Consett in my constituency for the work that they have done. Does the Minister agree that the last thing we should be doing is moving to scrap universal credit, which is a system that is really helping thousands of my constituents? Does this not show how out of touch the Opposition are, when this system is benefiting millions of people across the country at this incredibly difficult time?
Will Quince
I completely agree; universal credit is a modern, dynamic, agile and fairer welfare safety net, which, in the face of unprecedented demand, ensured that millions of people were paid in full and on time. This is a system that, by any measure, has passed the most challenging of tests, supporting nearly 6 million vulnerable people through this pandemic. 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.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
Thanks to universal credit’s modern, dynamic and agile system, it has effectively supported nearly 6 million people, with over 90% of new claimants receiving their first payment in full and on time. This is in stark contrast to the paper-based legacy system, which would have seen queues outside our jobcentres and would have buckled under the pressure.
Mr Clarke [V]
I have seen for myself on visits to the fantastic jobcentres in Guisborough and Loftus how the teams there really value universal credit, and how it has helped to support people over the last turbulent year. Will my hon. Friend reassure my constituents that there is no question of universal credit going anywhere, and does he agree that the Leader of the Opposition calling for it to be scrapped is simply the height of opportunism and irresponsibility?
Will Quince
The universal credit system and tens of thousands of dedicated, incredible DWP staff have processed an unprecedented number of claims—over 3 million since mid-March. It is not just my hon. Friend who is saying this; the IFS slammed Labour’s pledge to scrap UC as uncosted, as well as,
“unwise…expensive, disruptive and unnecessary.”
The Government believe that work should always pay and we need a welfare system that helps people into work, supports those who need it and is fair to those who pay for it. Remember: no Labour Government have ever left office with unemployment lower than when they started.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
Although face-to-face work capability assessments remain temporarily suspended, we are conducting paper-based assessments where possible. We have also introduced telephone assessments and are trialling video assessments. We closely monitor processing times, and are prioritising new claims and changes of circumstances.
Kate Osamor [V]
In its latest briefing, the Child Poverty Action Group has highlighted the plight of universal credit claimants whose work capability assessments have been delayed indefinitely because they require a face-to-face assessment. These claimants have gone months without hundreds of pounds of extra support, which they need. What assurances can the Minister provide these claimants about when they will be able to access this element of universal credit?
Justin Tomlinson
We are doing absolutely everything we can to ensure that claimants are accessing the support as quickly as possible, which is why we introduced at pace telephone assessments and now video assessments. Wherever possible, we are also conducting paper-based assessments. We continue to do all we can, and we will return to include face-to-face assessments as soon as it is safe to do so.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman) [V]
Winter fuel payments of between £100 and £300 are provided to all those of state pension age. In addition, certain benefit recipients can also receive payments from the warm home discount scheme and the cold weather payment scheme. As mentioned by the Secretary of State earlier, we have introduced a covid winter grant scheme, which has made £170 million available to English local authorities.
Harriett Baldwin
Obviously the weather has been very cold and families are spending much more time at home, so I welcome all that additional support to help with heating. Will the Minister clarify whether the money is paid automatically or families must actively apply for it?
Guy Opperman
Worcestershire received £1.6 million to provide support to vulnerable households and families. This can be used to support the costs of heating, utility bills and various other items, and is available at the local authority’s discretion. Clearly, my hon. Friend should contact her local councillors and the leader of the local authority for further details.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman) [V]
In February last year, we launched a nationwide campaign to raise awareness of pension credit and have continued to make that case throughout the past year, notwithstanding the difficulties of the pandemic. The Department for Work and Pensions is currently considering an internal review of communication products to identify further improvements in our messaging, with many more aspects to be pursued this year.
Andrew Rosindell [V]
The Minister will know that uptake of pension credit has remained below 65% since 2010. Although, as he said, there was an awareness campaign in 2020, with good intentions, it was only 12 weeks long and partly occurred during the pandemic. Does he agree with me, and others, including the charity Independent Age, that rather than being one-off events, such awareness campaigns should be part of a wider long-term strategy and take advantage of new innovations and channels?
Guy Opperman
We plan to use existing Government letters on the attendance allowance and state pension, and other letters that the Government send out, to help to promote pension credit. We are also discussing a joint working arrangement with the BBC. We continue to make all efforts to try to promote pension credit.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Our kickstart scheme is putting the future of young people front and centre of our plan for jobs. I have already shared with the House that over 120,000 kickstart roles have now been approved, and we want to turn those into job starts. In addition to making it simpler for employers by removing the 30-vacancy threshold for direct applications, as was set out earlier, employers who cannot currently access kickstart at all—for example, sole traders with no pay-as-you-earn systems—can now join up through the gateway-plus model that is currently provided by the Federation of Small Businesses and Adecco joint venture. It is an exciting phase as we move up a gear.[Official Report, 4 February 2021, Vol. 688, c. 8MC.]
Chi Onwurah
This weekend, Newcastle United fans food bank launched a virtual bucket so that fans can donate small sums online on matchdays to help to meet the massive increase in demand from hungry families. Will the Secretary of State congratulate the food bank organisers on their hard work and ingenuity, and explain to them why she will not cancel the cut to universal credit that will force many of the 16,000 claimants in Newcastle further into destitution, increasing debt, food poverty and demand for the food bank?
Dr Coffey
Of course I congratulate the organisation through the football club to which the hon. Lady refers: it is of great worthiness to undertake that. She will be aware of the support that has been ongoing and also the additional £170 million winter grant from which Newcastle City Council will be benefiting in order to help to make sure that no child goes hungry and every child stays warm this winter.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) [V]
Dr Coffey
We have provided an unprecedented economic support package to protect and create jobs through the pandemic. For people who need to change careers, our sector-based work academy programmes—SWAPs—offer training, work experience and a guaranteed job interview to get those people ready to start a job, allowing them to learn the skills that employers in that particular industry look for. Alongside that, our flexible support fund has been boosted by an extra £150 million so that work coaches can help to support individuals facing redundancy through retraining and overcoming barriers to work.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
As we have heard, last week this House voted that the Government should not proceed with the £1,000 cut to universal credit set to take place in April. That position is now supported by 280 MPs, more than 60 charities and campaign groups, and the majority of the British public. I have listened to the Government today, as ever, but, as it stands, that cut is formally written into official Treasury documents, and the Prime Minister has indicated that he thinks the cut should happen, but last week the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), said that it was too early to make the decision. Will the Secretary of State clarify what is Government policy on reducing universal credit in April, what criteria will affect the decision, and who in Government will ultimately make that decision?
Dr Coffey
As has been explained several times to the House today, and previously by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), the Government introduced a raft of temporary measures to support those most impacted by the covid pandemic. The hon. Member is aware of the statement I made to the House, where I said that the situation would be reviewed in the new year, and that is exactly what I am doing. I am working closely with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor as we consider the options on how best to support people through the pandemic.
Jonathan Reynolds
I put it to the Secretary of State that she must give clarity to the millions of families this cut will affect. If she wished, she could give that reassurance now. I also ask for clarity on reports that the Chancellor is planning on giving a one-off payment to universal credit claimants, ignoring those on other benefits, and leaving the hundreds of thousands of likely new claimants expected this year with lower levels of support. Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be not only unfair, but a very poor use of public money to pay a lump sum to people on universal credit now, while cutting unemployment support to its lowest level for 20 years, just as unemployment is set to peak?
Dr Coffey
I can only more or less repeat what I said before. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I are actively working on proposals on how we can continue to make sure that we support people most badly affected by the pandemic. This is part of the discussions that are still ongoing, and I can assure the House that we are actively considering it and hope to make an announcement when we can, in order to give that certainty, as the hon. Member points out, to a number of people.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) [V]
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the key role that pension scheme assets can play in tackling climate change. The UK is already leading the way on this issue, thanks to actions taken by the Government, but particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), the excellent Minister for Pensions. In 2018, we introduced key environmental, social and corporate governance legislation for occupational pension scheme investments, and we have gone further with the pension scheme legislation that is currently awaiting Royal Assent. It makes the UK the first major economy to put assessing climate risk and disclosure into statute for pension schemes, a point that we will continue to reinforce as we run up to hosting COP26, and we encourage other countries to do likewise.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab) [V]
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
I thank the hon. Member for that question. As set out earlier, SSP is only part of the wide range of support that could be available, including universal credit, new-style ESA and support through local authorities. It will depend on each individual claimant’s circumstances. Wider SSP was increased as part of the annual uprating. As part of “Health is everyone’s business”, we continue to review the rates, structure and support provided through SSP.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) [V]
Dr Coffey
My right hon. Friend raises an important issue. Within the last year, we have reviewed parts of the complaints process. I am also conscious that my noble Friend Baroness Stedman-Scott, who leads on this, has arranged for more resources to go into the independent case examiner. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend could share with me or with the noble Baroness the precise details, so that we can investigate what has happened.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
Dr Coffey
I am not sure which specific payments the hon. Gentleman is referring to. I have highlighted, as has the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), the warm home discount scheme. There are other winter grant schemes, which have specific criteria. If the hon. Gentleman would like to contact one of the Ministers in the Department directly, I am sure that we can look into that casework for him.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
We are providing £15 million for local authorities to make discretionary payments to people not eligible for the self-employment income support scheme. The DWP has temporarily relaxed the minimum income floor for self-employed UC claimants affected by covid-19. The self-employed have also benefited from other parts of our support package, such as increased local housing allowance. However, I urge anyone who thinks they may need further support to check the benefits calculator on gov.uk.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
We keep all policies under review, including the uplift to universal credit, which is under active discussion between our Department and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would gently push back on what the hon. Lady said and alert her to the fact that in 2020-21, we will spend more than £120 billion on benefits for working-age people. That is £120,000 million—around £1 in every £8 that the Government spend; three times the defence budget, and nearly as large as the NHS budget. We continue to support people throughout this country during the pandemic.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) [V]
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a champion of real lived experience through his casework and his speeches in Parliament. I can reassure him that both the DWP health and disability Green Paper and the national strategy for disabled people will be shaped by those with real lived experiences. I know that, as a proactive Member of Parliament, he will be happy to host his own stakeholder engagement event with his local advocacy groups.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) [V]
Justin Tomlinson
As already set out, this is part of the menu of support that people could benefit from, including universal credit, new style ESA and support provided through local authorities or, if they qualify, £500 through the test and trace scheme. But on the wider point, through “Health is everyone’s business”, we have covered a range of measures to look at reforming SSP. We will publish those findings shortly, but they will look at things such as the rate, the structure and the lower earnings threshold, as well as actually dealing with the issue that people are either 100% fit or 100% sick without any phased return to work, which is something we are determined to change.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) [V]
Mims Davies
In addition to the excellent work already being done at the Crawley youth hub in the town hall and the existing Jobcentre Plus, I am pleased that, as part of the DWP estates expansion and renewal programme, we will shortly open a new jobcentre at Forest Gate and a DWP response hub at Gatwick airport. As well as generating valuable employment opportunities, this will ensure that we can provide the support that individuals of all ages need in and around Crawley.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) [V]
Mims Davies
Sanctions are only ever used when someone fails to comply with reasonable and appropriate commitments without a good reason. Following the gradual reintroduction of conditionality in the claimant commitment, the UC sanction rate remains very low, at a record low level. I am happy, if the hon. Gentleman wants to raise this particular issue with me, to have a look at it, but, as I say, the sanction rate has very much been on a downward trend.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) [V]
Mims Davies
Mr Speaker, would you like to be a 3D animator, a disabled riding school assistant, a camera operator or maybe a trainee fencing coach? These are all kickstart roles that are available. We have made it simpler for employers to get involved with kickstart, cutting the 30 posts minimum threshold so those applying for any number of roles can now apply direct to the DWP. We have also made it easier for sole traders to sign up. We have had a great response, with over 6,500 employers stepping up to offer placements in different fields and sectors, as we have heard, and also to be crucial gateways.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Will Quince
First, let me say that I appreciate that many people are facing financial disruption due to the pandemic, and the Government have put unprecedented levels of support in place. As the hon. Lady rightly points out, legacy benefits are being increased by 0.5% this year, on top of the 1.7% last year. Legacy benefit claimants can make an application for universal credit, but what I would say is that I encourage them to check on one of the benefit calculators on gov.uk. Once they make an application to universal credit, their entitlement to legacy benefits will cease, so it is very important that they do check first.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) [V]
Will Quince
The qualifying period for support for mortgage interest is in place because it is reasonable for homeowners to make arrangements with their lenders, to manage any loss of income for a short period, without the state needing to intervene. Homeowners struggling with mortgage repayments because of covid-19 should contact their lender as soon as possible to discuss what support may be available. At present, the Department has no plans to amend the qualifying period for support for mortgage interest, but I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter at length.
Mr Speaker
I will now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Opposition Day
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Council Tax: Government’s Proposed Increase
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 210 / Noes: 0 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Prime Minister to drop the Government’s plans to force local councils to increase council tax in the middle of a pandemic by providing councils with funding to meet the Government’s promise to do whatever is necessary to support councils in the fight against covid-19.
Right at the heart of the local government funding settlement, there lurks a rather nasty little surprise. What the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government trumpeted as an increase in funding for councils was nothing of the sort. Instead of the promised “end to austerity”, we got a Conservative council tax bombshell.
The Government made a choice to clobber hard-pressed families with a 5% council tax rise, after the Government’s mistakes led our country into the worst recession of any major economy. There are two big problems with that: it is economically illiterate to push up taxes while the economy is in crisis; and it is dishonest to trumpet the end of austerity when most councils will still be forced to cut services even after they impose the Conservative tax hike, because the rising costs of social care outstrip any increase in revenue, and the Government have done nothing about that crisis.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman please explain, if he does not think that councils should be increasing taxes, why the Mayor of London is proposing to increase his precept by 10%?
Steve Reed
It was actually the Secretary of State for Transport who told the Mayor of London that he had to increase council tax. [Interruption.] Oh yes, it was. The reason there is a funding gap in London is that Londoners have done the right thing and followed the Government advice to keep covid-safe by keeping off public transport as much as they can. Transport for London’s revenues have therefore collapsed, but the Government have refused to provide the financial support to cover that problem. I imagine the Government thought they were punishing the Mayor of London ahead of the London mayoral elections; what they have actually done is punish Londoners, and that is wrong.
The Government’s message to council tax payers is: “Pay more but get less under the Conservatives.” Last March, as the country went into lockdown, the Secretary of State made a commitment to fund councils to do what was necessary to get communities through the crisis. He was right to say that—I give him credit for doing so—but just two months later, he broke that promise.
The Conservative-led Local Government Association estimates that councils face a £2.5 billion funding gap as a result of the lost income and additional costs of supporting communities through these unprecedented circumstances over the past year. The Government’s planned council tax increase will raise just under £2 billion next year. If the Government had not broken their promise on funding, councils would already have that amount available to them. Of course, the Government threw away £10 billion on crony contracts for companies with links to senior Conservative politicians. Just a proportion of that money would have plugged councils’ funding gap entirely.
The Government’s failure over the past year has left Britain with the worst recession of any major economy and one of the highest death rates in the world. Now, with their inflation-busting tax hikes, the Government are making hard-working families pay the price for Conservative failure, and the timing really could not be worse. The Tory tax hike will land on people’s door mats in the same month that over 2 million people come off the furlough scheme. Many of those people are worried sick about their future job security. Millions more are worried about their income falling. This is no time to clobber them with a tax hike.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman mentions recessions and bad timing for increasing council tax. When he was leader of Lambeth Council, he increased council tax in 2007 and 2008, during the economic recession. Why did he think it was okay to do so then?
Steve Reed
I am glad the hon. Gentleman raises that, because when I won control of Lambeth Council for the Labour party in 2006, we took over from an administration, jointly run by the Conservatives, that had raised council tax by 33% over four years, and yet service performance was on the floor. I froze council tax, with no increase at all for two years, and despite doing so, we raised the performance of standards that were left on the floor by Conservatives and achieved an outstanding rating in every single category of children’s services. We did that because Labour Members understand value for money, while Conservative Members simply do not.
The proof of that is in what the Government are trying to do with the council tax rise this year. Families who are worried about paying their heating bills or putting food on the table simply cannot afford it. It will put them under even greater financial strain and it will hit high streets that, right now, are struggling to survive. Many local businesses are on their last legs financially after years of restrictions. These tax rises threaten to choke off spending, just as we need the economy to start opening up and motoring after the pandemic.
With the Government now in full retreat on the devolution agenda, there is still one thing they are very interested in devolving, and that is the blame for cuts and council tax hikes made in Downing Street. The Secretary of State tried to justify the tax hike by claiming he is giving councils a choice—I am sure he will repeat that at the Dispatch Box today—but the truth is he is not. The Government’s funding plans, published in December, include the expectation—an assumption, not an option—that council tax will go up.
Councils’ biggest long-term financial headache is how to pay for social care. As more people, thankfully, live longer, councils need more funding to offer frail older people the care they need to make the most of their lives, but the Government have cut funding over the past decade, forcing councils to restrict care, so it is available only to those in the most severe categories of need. On his very first day in office, standing on the steps of No. 10 Downing Street, the Prime Minister told the country he had a plan to fix the social care crisis. No one has seen a dot or comma of that plan since, so councils have been forced to keep cutting, because the Prime Minister’s plan does not seem to exist—unless the Secretary of State can tell us differently when he speaks at the Dispatch Box.
Let us not forget that because a council tax increase raises less money in poorer areas, the Government are deepening the postcode lottery for social care, instead of ensuring that every single older and disabled person anywhere in our country gets the care they need, regardless of where they live. This Government are not levelling the country up; they are pulling the country apart.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
If we do not raise this money in council tax, it still has to come from somewhere. How would the hon. Gentleman raise it?
Steve Reed
The Secretary of State has already given the hon. Gentleman the answer, and I am very pleased to repeat what the Secretary of State and the Chancellor said last March: they would fully compensate councils for the cost of getting the country through the crisis. A £2.5 billion funding gap is what they have left, according to James Jamieson, the Conservative leader of the Local Government Association. That is more than the amount that will be raised in council tax, and the hon. Gentleman can do the maths as well as I can. That would not be necessary if the Secretary of State kept his promises.
The costs of social care this year will rise faster than any additional income that is being made available to pay for it, so the only choice the Government are giving all our town halls is to put up council tax while families are still suffering the effects of the recession, or to cut social care during an unprecedented global health pandemic. That is no choice at all, and it is why the Government have got this so badly wrong.
Older people have suffered enough, thanks to this Government’s failures. Over a third of all covid deaths in the UK have been in care homes because the Government were too slow on distributing personal protective equipment, too slow on rolling out testing and too slow to act on hospital discharges that seeded the disease in those very care homes.
Councils need funding to pay for the care older people deserve, and not just during this pandemic. Hard-working families need support to cope with the hit that their incomes have suffered over the past year. Struggling high street businesses need the Government to encourage spending, not choke it off. Councils of all political colours will be forced to put up council tax this year, not because they want to, but because the Government have left them with no real choice. The costs of covid will have to be paid for, but not by raising taxes on people who cannot afford it at a time when their incomes are under so much strain and the pandemic is still raging.
Make no mistake: this is a Conservative tax hike made in Downing street and imposed on hard-working families after the Government’s mistakes left our country facing the deepest recession of any major economy. We will not secure our economy by choking off spending, we will not protect the NHS by denying older people the care they need and we will not rebuild our country by killing off our high streets. I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to think again and scrap their plans to force town halls to increase council tax at a time like this.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to end and add:
“notes that council tax doubled under the last Labour Government, but has fallen in real terms in England since 2010; asserts that council budgets are a local decision for elected councillors and mayors, but local taxpayers are now protected from excessive council tax increases, a policy opposed by the LGA Labour Group; disagrees with the Labour Party’s ‘Land for the Many’ proposals to hit hard-working families and pensioners with a new homes tax; notes that the biggest increases in council tax have been under the Labour Government in Wales thanks to their council tax revaluation and lack of referendum protections; welcomes the fact that Conservative councils set the lowest average Band D rates; and further welcomes the additional government funding of over £30 billion provided by the Government to support councils during the Covid-19 pandemic.”.
The Labour party position on this most important question is so inconsistent and contradictory that it is difficult to know where to start, but let me give a few basic facts to the House. The Leader of the Opposition thinks councils should not be given limited flexibility to decide themselves, locally, to raise their council tax rate. Yet, as we have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), the Labour Mayor of London has decided to hike his share of council tax by 10%, while still finding the room to up his personal PR budget to £13 million, run by a £130,000-a-year spin doctor based in California. I am all in favour of working from home, but that really is quite a leap.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
May we just leave London for a moment, because there is a real dissonance between what people pay in a big city such as London and what people pay and get back in a rural area such as West Lindsey, with which my right hon. Friend is very familiar? We pay slightly more and we get a lot less— sometimes not even a street lamp; maybe a rubbish collection every two weeks. So can he address this real issue on behalf of rural people and say what he is doing to help us in rural areas?
Robert Jenrick
I certainly can. My right hon. Friend is fortunate to have a good Conservative council and it will benefit from the largest ever rural services grant in the settlement, which will give more money to help deliver the sorts of services that his constituents will rely on in a very rural part of the country.
The shadow Communities Secretary as leader of Lambeth Council hiked council tax by more than £100, including a 5% rise at the height of the unemployment crisis presided over by the last Labour Government. Yet today he believes that councils should not even have limited flexibility to do the same. Labour leaders in local government do not want limited flexibility to increase council taxes; they want to abolish the right of local people to veto excessive tax increases altogether, so that they can increase taxes by as much as they want. We all know where that leads for Labour councils: while council tax has fallen under the Conservatives in real terms since 2010, the last Labour Government presided over a doubling of council tax and, in Labour-run Wales, it is trebling.
Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should pick up the phone, check in with his own local leadership from time to time and get their ducks in a row before opposing the very same flexibility that their councils are the greatest advocates of. From Leeds to Telford to the Wirral to Sefton, the A to Z of Labour local councils have demanded that we allow them to increase council tax “without limit”. They describe in their responses to the local government settlement that keeping their tax-raising instincts in check is frustrating, “an imposition”—not an imposition on tax payers, I hasten to add; they barely get a look-in. It is all there in black and white in the Labour councils’ responses to the local government settlement.
Steve Reed
The Secretary of State may want to correct the record, because actually I froze council tax, with a zero increase, the year following the crisis in 2007-08 and the year after that as well, but does he recognise that it is the Conservative leader of the Local Government Association, James Jamieson—a councillor I am sure he knows very well—who has called for the cap to be lifted for council tax increases and for a referendum to be abolished, not the Labour party Front Bench?
Mr Speaker
Mr Jenrick, you moved the amendment. I presume that you did not wish to. Could you withdraw the moving of the amendment?
Robert Jenrick
Yes, I am happy to withdraw it, Mr Speaker.
I will come on to the remarks of the LGA in a few minutes, if I may, but the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways: he cannot say that he is unhappy that we have imposed a cap that provides limited flexibility for local councils to decide of their own volition whether to increase council tax or not, and that he wants the cap lifted altogether so councils can increase it without limit, which seems to be the consensus among his own local government leaders.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could check in with his own council in Croydon, a council that in its consultation response to the Department on last year’s finance settlement said:
“we are disappointed that the ability to increase locally determined Council Tax has been reduced and that”
it
“can…only be increased by 2%”—
directly contradicting the hon. Gentleman.
How are these councils actually performing? Croydon is a council that has found itself in £1.5 billion of debt, the only council to go bust in 2020, following the collapse of its housebuilding company, Brick by Brick, which may not have proved to be very good at building, but did prove to be extremely good at owing people a lot of money. The problem is that Labour in local government today is a catalogue of failure, dysfunction and waste.
In Nottingham, the party opposite blew £38 million on a failed energy company and made 230 of its employees redundant over Skype, before rewarding themselves with a backdated pay rise. Robin Hood Energy, they described it. Well, Robin Hood stole from the rich, but Labour’s Robin Hood just stole from everyone.
Up in Durham, the council, at the height of the pandemic, approved a new 3,500 square feet roof terrace on its £50 million county hall. Merton Council reportedly set up a building company with a £2 million investment, only not to deliver a single home. The council leader said it was designed to make money, but he had built in—I kid you not—jumping off points. It turns out that there was no parachute for local residents. Labour Warrington has debts of least £1.6 billion. After Bristol City Council’s socialist energy company went bust, Warrington’s own version, Together Energy, decided it would be a good idea to buy it and then, of course, got into financial difficulties itself. Hackney Council planted thousands of trees, only for them to die due to neglect—literally, Labour dead wood.
Even the Labour Local Government Front Bench keeps up the tradition, inexplicably taking two shadow Secretaries of State to do the job of one actual one. The shadow Housing Secretary freely admits to reporters that she has no policies. The shadow Local Government Secretary reportedly rebuked a colleague in the shadow Cabinet for trying to develop some. From what we have heard today, perhaps it would have been better if he had taken his own advice. His first attempt after nine months has fallen apart at the slightest interrogation. Labour councils themselves want to raise taxes locally at or above the flexibility we are proposing. Labour and Liberal Democrat councils consistently have higher council taxes than Conservative councils. Labour councils consistently underperform Conservative councils. Whether it is Croydon or Nottingham, they are consistently letting down their local residents.
Gary Sambrook
May I add to the Secretary of State’s list? In Birmingham, the city council originally budgeted £2 million to move a bus depot. That escalated to £16 million, which local people are going to have to pay, all to achieve a move down the road of only 300 metres. Is that not just a perfect example of Labour incompetence in local government?
Robert Jenrick
There are many examples I could cite from Birmingham City Council, but I do not think time allows me to do that.
Let us contrast this Government’s approach to protecting the interests of local tax payers with that of Labour. In one year alone, the last Labour Administration oversaw an increase in council tax by a staggering 12.9%. In comparison, as we have said, since 2010 this Government have implemented five years of council tax freezes, under which the great majority of councils did not increase council tax at all. In retail price index terms, council tax is lower than it was in 2010. We have introduced legislation to end crude and universal top-down capping, ensuring significant council tax increases can be implemented only through a referendum, giving local tax payers a right to veto excessive tax increases.
Across the country, Conservatives charge the lowest taxes. We see this on the ground wherever we look. In the Leader of the Opposition’s constituency, in Labour-run Camden, council tax is three times as high as in neighbouring Conservative-run Westminster. As I am sure the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) can testify, residents in Labour Merton and Lambeth pay almost twice the council tax of residents living just one or two roads away in Wandsworth. The Mayor of London has presided over a rise in council tax every year he was elected. To put that in perspective, when the Prime Minister was Mayor, he reduced the amount of council tax he charged Londoners by almost 11% during his tenure. In his last year alone, band D households in the 32 London boroughs saw their Greater London Authority council tax charges fall by 6.4%. Across the country, Conservative Mayors, whether Andy Street in the west midlands or Ben Houchen in Teesside, are continuing that tradition: low on taxes; high on leadership and delivery.
The provisional local finance settlement, which I announced to the House on 17 December, set out our proposals to increase the core spending power available to councils by 4.5%, a significant and real-terms increase. That comes on top of a 4.5% real-terms increase this year—a settlement the Labour party considered so good that, for the first time in living memory, it did not even oppose it. In total, we expect core spending power for English councils to increase from £49 billion this year to £51.2 billion next year, in line with last year’s increases and recognising the resources that councils need to meet extraordinary pressures while maintaining the essential services they provide.
The measures I proposed will provide an additional £1 billion of funding for adult and children’s social care. We have also confirmed that we intend to roll forward last year’s £1.4 billion of social care grant and continue the 2020-21 improved better care funding at £2.1 billion. We are considering responses to the settlement consultation and will return to the House to set out the final funding package for local government in the very near future.
The shadow Secretary of State has suggested to the House today that this Government have not delivered on our commitment to communities during the pandemic. This past year has seen the largest ever injection of in-year cash to the local government sector. Taken together, we have provided over £36 billion of support to and through local government in response to the pandemic. To put that in context, in 2019-20 the entire council tax take for the whole of England was £31.6 billion—less than we have provided in year to and through local councils this year alone. Local authorities have received £8 billion in direct funding, with a further £3 billion extra already announced for 2021-22, and we forecast adding an additional £1.2 billion to that from schemes to compensate for lost council income from sales, fees and charges.
That takes the total additional funding provided to local authorities to over £12 billion, £2 billion more than the sum the Local Government Association called for at the start of the pandemic—the sum the shadow Secretary of State himself estimated to be the cost to councils of covid at the time. We know today that we have provided £1 billion more than local government has self-reported to my Department as covid-related costs throughout that period—£1 billion more than even councils have told us they have spent and need. Let us be clear that when the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and I promised to support local councils and the communities that rely on them, we meant that promise, and we have delivered on that promise.
Since the start of the pandemic, we have mobilised our welfare system like never before, with generous income support schemes, mortgage holidays, support for renters, a £500 million local authority hardship fund, a £170 million covid winter grant scheme and much-needed help with utilities. To support local economies, we have provided £12 billion in grants to thousands of businesses the length and breadth of the country, and a business rates holiday worth around £10 billion to local retail, hospitality and leisure sectors. We have operated a major reimbursement scheme for lost council income, recovering billions of pounds from car parks, leisure centres, theatres and tourist attractions—money that will go to help councils move forward and recover.
That is not even to mention £4.6 billion of un-ring-fenced grant support to councils, £1 billion through the infection control fund, £1 billion through the contain outbreak management grant and £300 million via the test and trace service support grant. I could go on and on: 5 million food boxes delivered; 2 million shielded people protected through councils; and, of course, 33,000 rough sleepers brought in off the streets under the world-class Everyone In programme, and given the chance to rebuild their lives. That is central Government and local government working together through a unique pandemic to support millions of people across the country.
Local government has been—and remains—at the forefront of our response to covid-19. This Government are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with local government in its hour of greatest need: with the officers, the teachers, the refuse collectors, the care workers, and the environmental health officers enforcing our regulations. For all that they have done, we salute them and thank them on behalf of our communities and our country. We owe them the stability, certainty and flexibility to plan for a brighter future ahead, and that is exactly what we have done, what we will do and what we will always do for them.
Our communities have never needed good council leadership more than they do today. Whether it is in Croydon or in Nottingham, across the country the reputation of too many Labour councils is, frankly, rotten. We take no lectures from the Labour party, which presided over eye-watering increases in council tax throughout its time in office, and whose economic mismanagement in local government has been laid painfully bare for all to see. The reports of those councils—Croydon and Nottingham—spell it out: mismanagement; waste; poor public services; and, yes, higher council taxes. There is a toxic legacy of debt and dysfunction, not just for today but for future generations. And where, frankly, was the shadow Secretary of State? Where was his denunciation of Croydon and Nottingham? He was silent. He was invisible. His famous Twitter account was as uncharacteristically quiet as that of Donald Trump—no leadership when the country needed it.
While we have reduced council tax in real terms under our watch, Labour has increased it time and again. While we have been clear that we have a plan to protect local councils and that we care about local council taxpayers, Labour has perfected the art of saying nothing at all. Frankly, council taxpayers across the country deserve better than this absurd and hypocritical debate from the Labour party, and they will have the opportunity to say so in May.
Mr Speaker
For the avoidance of doubt, the Secretary of State has not moved the selected amendment. The Question before the House remains that already proposed, as on the Order Paper. I remind hon. Members that a time limit is in effect for Back Benchers. The countdown clock will be visible on the screens of hon. Members participating virtually and on the screens in the Chamber. For hon. Members participating physically in the Chamber, the usual clock in the Chamber will operate. I am going to start with a four-minute limit. I call Peter Dowd, up in Liverpool.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) [V]
Listening to the Secretary of State, it seems that everything is fine in local government, and local authorities have all the money and resources they need. Well, the Local Government Association does not say that, the Institute for Fiscal Studies does not say that, council leaders do not say that and Tory MPs—the ones who have a spine, anyway—do not say it. The Secretary of State consulted local government given the dire circumstances, and local government gave a view about council tax; it is entitled to do that.
The year 2021 marks 40 years since I was elected as a Merseyside county councillor, and now we have the city regions. Those councils were abolished by Mrs Thatcher—mainly because they stood up to her—and the beginnings of the first stage of austerity began. It seems that nothing much changes in 40 years. I continue to see local government bear the brunt of cuts and policies of retrenchment in the light of the Government’s inability to see beyond the confines of Westminster and Whitehall. Not content with making a hash of virtually every policy decision and initiative in relation to covid—I use the words “policy” and “initiative” with a certain amount of caution—they continue to dump on local government.
When I was the leader of Sefton Council, I often referred to the overall balance experienced and witnessed among local councils across the country. As early as 2010, my council had in-year cuts to funding—for example, for neighbourhood renewal funds— and things simply got worse that after that stage. As time went by, my authority had cut after cut after cut. When I first came to the House in 2015, five years into austerity, I heard one Conservative Member express surprise at and bemoan the fact that his local police authority was supposed to find savings that year—it was as though he was some sort of Rip Van Winkle who had just woken up. The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), is a former council leader, like me, so has witnessed the impact of continued retrenchment in local council finance. That is the responsibility of the Government, not local government.
Meanwhile, as the unprecedented crisis in local government goes into even deeper and darker places and councils struggle to provide the most basic of services, the Secretary of State should be concentrating on the wellbeing of the living, not on the wellbeing of inanimate objects and issues such as the removal of statues in various areas. It is a diversionary tactic; I am sure the Secretary of State could have come up with something a tad more imaginative than that.
Allowing and expecting councils to increase council tax by 5% will mean very different things for households in different parts of the country. Although the percentage increase is uniform throughout the country, the starting point in absolute terms is very different. It is important to take that into account. If we follow the Chancellor’s assumption that councils increase tax by the maximum allowed, for band D householders in the Sefton Council area, the tax will go up in April by £99 for 2021, compared with £54 in Westminster and £55 in Wandsworth. Is that fair? No, it is not.
I have a number of questions for the Secretary of State. With the UK having experienced the worst recession of any major economy, does he really think that now is the time to raise council tax? Does he recognise that most councils will simply have no choice but to raise council tax to preserve crucial services such as adult social care and children’s social care? What assessment has he made of the impact on the economic recovery of taking £90 out of the pockets of families? Frankly, is it not about time that, instead of bowing down to the Chancellor, the Secretary of State stood up for local government and said, “Enough is enough”?
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) [V]
It was my great privilege to serve as the Local Government Minister for the first six months of our response to covid-19, and am I am grateful to have this opportunity to commend the whole sector for its response. I witnessed three things in my time at the Department that are particularly relevant to today’s debate. First, I witnessed the absolute sincerity of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and all in the Department, in respect of the Government’s commitment to provide all the support that the sector needs throughout the pandemic.
As we heard my right hon. Friend say in his speech, the gap between what many leaders say and what the sector then self-reports to the Department is often profound. Throughout the spring, we faced real concerns about the number of councils that might need to issue section 114 notices to declare themselves effectively bankrupt; as we have seen, that has not transpired. It has not transpired for a reason: namely, the effective and highly tailored support schemes that have been put in place alongside direct grant support. We should not underestimate the complexity of the local government landscape and the need to respond to the different challenges that face different types of council in different parts of the country. That response has been accomplished, and councils have worked admirably and been able to get on with delivering their important work.
Secondly, I saw the exceptional knowledge and dedication of the local government finance team in the Department. The team’s staff live and breathe the work and the recommendations of Ministers reflect the hard work that they put in in direct conversation with council finance officers. We have struck a fair balance, apportioning the costs of our response to covid-19 between central and local government. Most reasonable people would accept that that is the only realistic route through the current situation.
Thirdly, we need to recognise that local authorities clearly have important responsibilities, too. Some authorities have been hit hard over the past year by factors that are legitimately outside their control. Some, such as Bath and North East Somerset Council, have been affected by factors relating to covid; others have been affected by issues such as cyber-attacks—I know that Ministers are working hard to resolve the situation at my local authority, Redcar and Cleveland, at pace. Such authorities must, and will, be supported.
However, other authorities have made seriously poor decisions for which they simply cannot attempt to blame central Government. The Secretary of State has already referred to the situation in Croydon and the reverse Robin Hood scenario that has played out in Nottingham. The sheer brass neck of the shadow Secretary of State in tabling today’s motion is genuinely astonishing, given that it is overwhelmingly Labour councils that have failed. I could go on: Bristol, Southampton and Brent, and the situation presided over by the Mayor of London, that master of evasion, which deserves to be punished by the electorate in May. It is of course the Labour group on the Local Government Association that is so keen to abolish the referendum lock, which is the only thing that in practice stands between ratepayers and exorbitant tax rises, so for the Opposition to initiate today’s debate is, I am afraid, pretty rich.
The Government have put in place an unprecedented package of support. What councils do beyond that is, rightly, a matter for them. This Government and Conservative-led councils will focus on getting the basics right: prudent financial management, driving down costs and waste, delivering high collection rates and supporting the truly vulnerable. I would note in this regard the extra £670 million next year that the Government have allocated to address the council tax hardship, which follows the £500 million for the same purpose this year. We have local democracy in place for a good reason. Councils control important aspects of our lives and should be accountable for that. Central and local government together have to meet the costs of responding to the pandemic, and for that reason, the quality of local decision making matters enormously.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) [V]
It is clear from the tone of the debate so far that Conservative Members have an ideological aversion to local government and local communities making decisions for themselves. The impact of covid-19 leaves a £50 million hole in Manchester City Council’s budget and a £37 million hole in Trafford Council’s budget for 2021-22. Both local authorities, which cover my constituency, are stuck between a rock and a hard place, being forced by the Government to propose increases to council tax in the middle of a pandemic. The savings options being considered by both local authorities will protect frontline services where possible. However, the tough options of cuts and savings are still hard to stomach.
Last week, communities in my constituency were affected by Storm Christoph, with residents being evacuated from their homes because of flood warnings on the River Mersey. The response by Manchester and Trafford local authorities was second to none, and I praise them for their outstanding response. Unfortunately, when the Prime Minister visited the Mersey valley last week, he failed to understand that those outstanding responses by the local authorities involved will become harder in future because of the depth and breadth of the cuts he is proposing. Communities at risk of flooding must not be let down because of inadequate resources. We must not let that happen at any time in the future.
Trafford Council has a funding gap of more than 20% of the size of its revenue budget for next year. It has also spent £50 million more than its £175 million revenue budget for this year. This demonstrates the scale of what local authorities such as Trafford are handling in excess of their usual workload in their response to covid-19, and with income streams falling, the demands on statutory services remain. The council tax hike will hit families in Wythenshawe and Sale East hard, when so many are worried about their future, the future of their jobs and how they will get through the next few months, particularly in a community such as mine, where tens of thousands of jobs are dependent on aviation at Manchester airport. With the Government not having given any specific aviation deal, many families in my constituency remain worried. The Government need to recognise that local government needs to be properly funded and that Manchester and Trafford residents must not be hit with a rise in their council tax bill and deterioration in their services.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]
Greetings from the land of King Alfred. We are doing well down here, and I am delighted to be able to join this debate. Very few people in Somerset will burst into song when their council tax bills arrive. I will say that the tax collectors on our four district councils spend their share of the money with commendable efficiency; they have shown that over the last year with covid. However, the bulk of the cash goes straight into the coffers of Somerset County Council, and that is where the trouble starts. This lumbering dinosaur of a local authority has an appalling record of mismanagement and financial jiggery-pokery dating back decades. Far too often, we hear it pleading poverty and begging for extra grants from Government, and it has been doing that recently. The whole idea of the unitary is to save the council from bankruptcy, we were told, and I am sure that that will not bypass the Secretary of State. For every bleeding heart story, there are shocking examples of bad decisions, blind leadership and sloppy practice. Somerset County Council, I am sorry to say, is a lost cause. Turning it into a unitary, which is what the council is after, will make it an even bigger failure, and I hope the Secretary of State ponders on that.
Let me give you an example, Mr Speaker. In common with many councils, the road network under Somerset County Council is an expensive failure and has been a complete disaster. The council signed a contract with Skanska, a worldwide enterprise with a pretty good reputation, three years ago. Skanska would fill the potholes, lay the tarmac and smooth out the wrinkles of the incompetence in county hall, all for £30 million a year. Common sense says that you get precisely what you pay for—not in Somerset. Believe it or not, the council has not checked the Skanska invoices. At the moment, the council has overpaid by more than £300,000 and probably a great deal more; the guess down here is that it runs into millions. When the regional auditors spotted the error, Somerset County Council deliberately hid the report, but it will emerge, I am glad to say, on Thursday.
Secrecy goes hand in hand with incompetence. Somerset County Council received around £43 million to ease the burden of the pandemic. We have all been trying to discover where that grant has gone on, including our council tax money. The council offered assurances but no proof. Tens of millions went into a reserve fund, which can be used for anything. We have all asked—not just me—for a precise breakdown, but we have yet to get it. How can we trust anybody who does not tell us the whole truth?
That is why I will not support the Opposition motion for any reason whatsoever. Labour wants to freeze local government taxes and ease the burden of fighting covid by offering a bottomless pit of money for councillors. It is not going to work; we know that. My district councils have spent the money wisely. Three of them are not of my persuasion, and I am impressed. They have done the work they are meant to do without compromising their ethics or concentrating on becoming a unitary. None of them has complained. They have used the money wisely, and they have done a lot of good. Somerset County Council was given shedloads more but will not reveal where the money went, so why on earth should we pile money into the manhole of Somerset County Council when we do not even know which way it is floating? On behalf of the people of Somerset—and you know how feisty they can be, Mr Speaker—may I say that we do not trust it?
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
As a former councillor, I am glad that we are able to hold this debate today. Before entering this place, I was a councillor for 17 years and saw at first hand the impact that austerity has had on our city and its families. I also saw the challenges we faced in trying to prioritise budgets in the face of wave after wave of cuts. Since 2010, many local authorities across the country have had to grapple with devastating cuts. My council in Sheffield has lost almost 50% of its budget, with cuts amounting to £475 million. Throughout this period, the Labour council has made difficult decisions and been forced to adapt many services, but it always sought to protect the most vulnerable in our city.
The Government’s proposals to allow councils to raise tax by up to 5% is absurd. It would not come close to addressing the funding crisis that many are experiencing. Next year’s costs for adult social care alone in Sheffield will be £31 million. A 3% increase would contribute only £6.6 million to that cost. The further 2% would contribute only £4.4 million. That does not come close enough to addressing the covid funding gap of £61 million that Sheffield City Council faces next year after the £92 million cost of responding to the pandemic.
This policy flies in the face of the Government’s levelling-up agenda by benefiting wealthier areas. While a 5% increase in Sheffield would raise £9 million, Surrey County Council would raise £38 million with the same increase. Councils across the country will, of course, be reluctant to raise council tax by 5%, but the Government have given them no choice. They have done what they do best: they have shifted any responsibility away from themselves. No council faced with significant funding gaps would refuse even the slightest boost to funding during these challenging times. It is shameful to hold councils to ransom in this way.
My constituency of Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough ranks as the 12th most deprived constituency in England. Over a third of children are eligible for free school meals. Very many of my constituents face tremendous hardships to make ends meet. Claims for universal credit have risen by 95% since March, with almost 14,000 families now receiving the payments—around half of these are in work. While the Government consider removing the uplift, they are also moving forward with this plan, which would add further strains to household budgets.
Families in Brightside and Hillsborough have particularly felt the cost of covid-19. Funding this increase will be more difficult for many families in our community than in more prosperous areas. I am deeply concerned that pushing forward with this plan would only further the hardships that many of them face. Hundreds of thousands of families across the country are feeling similar pressures. The Prime Minister said he would do “whatever it takes”. It appears that this meant abandoning councils and pushing the burden of support for their strained finances on to local taxpayers.
The Government are adept at performing U-turns, so I hope that they will do another and scrap this policy. The Chancellor must prioritise introducing a comprehensive funding settlement for local government to redress the budget imbalance that a decade of cuts and the covid-19 pandemic have caused.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) [V]
Today, we have heard arguments that the Government are forcing councils to increase council tax and that they have not adequately funded the costs associated with the covid-19 pandemic. The reality, however, is quite different, and the comprehensive spending measures taken have been set out clearly by the Secretary of State. Conservative councils on average also set the lowest band E council tax rates and, since 2010, we have ensured that council tax has fallen in real terms. That compares with the last Labour Government, when it doubled.
We know that councils face many challenges, but we also know that many decisions are taken locally and that taxpayers do not always get the value for money that they deserve. In my first real venture into politics, I spent many years as a councillor in the city of Nottingham, so I was very disappointed to hear of the scandal involving council-run Robin Hood Energy, a company that set out to help people struggling with their bills, but instead, failed to turn a profit and ended up losing millions and being closed down, leaving 230 workers redundant. Unlike the real Robin Hood, this one ended up taking people’s money and then losing it. While Alan Rickman’s sheriff famously suggested calling off Christmas, it is now the modern incarnation in the form of the Labour council that will see budget cuts of £15.6 million, the loss of 272 full-time jobs and numerous cuts in services.
At its peak, Robin Hood Energy supplied energy to 125,000 customers around the country, many of those through council-run partners. Its turnover went from £4.6 million in 2015-16 to nearly £100 million in 2018-19, but, in all but one year, that growth translated not into profit but into bigger losses. By March 2019, it was in the red by more than £34 million. Auditors Grant Thornton calculated that the council had invested a total of £43 million into the company and risked £16.5 million in guarantees. It said that the council had failed to act on warnings to manage their budgets and criticised the use of councillors on the boards of its companies without sector-specific knowledge, which it said led to huge debts. They now plan to sell off £100 million in assets to make up the shortfall and balance the books. In short, their coffers have had their hearts cut out with a spoon.
Compare this with Conservative-led Nottinghamshire County Council, which has managed its budget admirably. In my constituency, Labour-controlled Bassetlaw District Council has been given a great deal of Government support, with £54.2 million of funding in 2020-21, including an additional £2 million in covid-19 funding. In 2017, some councils in Nottinghamshire spent tens of thousands of pounds paying over and above the Government’s recommended rate for mileage. Notably, Bassetlaw paid the highest rate in the entire country—69p per mile—and, at the time, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs recommended only 45p per mile.
Other Nottinghamshire councils are no different with wasteful spending—for example, independent Ashfield District Council, which has created five extra cabinet positions and a political officer at a cost of £90,000, while increasing council tax. In Mansfield, the Labour-run executive Mayor’s office costs around £250,000 a year, and that is also entirely unnecessary.
This Government and Conservative-led councils have shown the way in terms of sound financial management and sustainable public finances. It is time the Opposition took note.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
As a former councillor—I was a councillor for a decade—I am extremely grateful to be able to take part in today’s important debate on increases in council tax.
In the depths of this chilling, coldest of winters, it is hard to believe that spring is on the way: the numbers of infections and deaths are rising; the hospitals are full; and the country is in lockdown. The vaccine obviously brings hope and I applaud those delivering the millions of doses, but we all know that there is still a mountain to climb. The harsh truth is that the economic price will be paid for years, if not decades. This is the worst recession for 300 years and the worst of any developed nation.
According to the Office for National Statistics, public sector debt is at an all-time high of £2.13 trillion. At the same time, tax revenues are down 0.7% year on year, and the Bank of England says that the unemployment rate will peak at 7.7% in April to June of this year. We rightly ask: what is the best possible policy to prevent economic carnage such as we saw in the 1930s and the 1980s, to create growth, to build better services, to protect jobs, and to make our economy stronger? We rightly ask: who should shoulder the biggest burden? Should it be those who are most able to afford it, or those who are least able to do so—the people who put on the personal protective equipment or the people who profiteer from selling it at exorbitant prices?
Ministers want a continuation of austerity and they want the poorest and the most vulnerable to pay for the crisis. Their proposed increase of up to 5% in council tax is further proof of that. It is not just morally wrong to increase council tax in the depths of a pandemic, but economically illiterate. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies states:
“Now is not the time to raise taxes; the economy is still weak and the recovery only just starting.”
We have had the pay freeze for key workers. We have cuts to universal credit on the way. We have seen increases in unemployment and growing reliance on emergency food parcels. In Slough alone, food banks distributed 6,533 food parcels to people in the past year. Now the Government want to increase council tax. In Slough, that would mean an increase in band D of £88. That represents the difference between turning on the heating or sitting in the cold; or between eating three meals a day or going hungry. There will be less money to spend in the local economy, hitting local shops and services. We need strong, resilient public services. When faced with a crisis, we do not need Serco; we need Slough Borough Council, the NHS, the armed services and all the amazing public services that make up the public sector.
It is nearly a year since the Secretary of State addressed more than 300 local government leaders, and the official press release, dated 16 March 2020, is still on the Government website. It says:
“The government stands ready to do whatever is necessary to support councils in their response to coronavirus, the Local Government Secretary confirmed to council leaders today (16 March 2020).”
I repeat, “whatever is necessary”. Have any other words turned to ashes so swiftly? By 4 May, the Secretary of State was telling councils not to labour under the false impression that they would be guaranteed funding from central Government. Well, who created that false impression in the first place? What dishonesty! It is no wonder that councils feel absolutely betrayed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. friend the shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government have recently written to the Government calling on them to think again, to protect families and to boost the economy. They are right, and that is why I shall support the Labour Opposition motion tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. There is a lot of pressure on time, as I am sure colleagues know, so we will now be taking the time limit down to three minutes. I understand that those participating virtually have already been informed of that, but I wanted to inform the Chamber.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) [V]
I was not informed that the time limit had been cut, but I will try to keep to three minutes.
As a former councillor and cabinet member of Cornwall Council, I know at first hand the important role that local authorities play in the lives of our constituents. There can be no doubt of the important role played by Cornwall Council, and councils up and down the country, in supporting local communities as we have faced this pandemic. In particular, I place on record my thanks to town and parish councils for the incredible work they have put in to support their local communities.
The Government have shown their recognition of the role that councils play with the support we have provided to local councils throughout this pandemic, amounting to billions of pounds. Cornwall Council alone has received more than £555 million to support the people of Cornwall. I am therefore pleased that this motion today gives us the opportunity to highlight the important work that councils do.
I am not surprised, however, that the Labour party’s motion misses a number of important points. First, it misses the Labour party’s own record on council tax. I remember when the Labour party was in government, when council tax doubled. Even now, Labour-run councils cost the taxpayer £84 a year more and Liberal Democrat-run councils a staggering £132 a year more than the average Conservative-run council. If we want to know what a Labour Government would do with council tax, we only have to look to Wales.
Secondly, the motion misses the point by saying that the Government should provide funding, but without saying where it should come from. It is all taxpayers’ money; whether raised centrally or locally, someone has to pay.
Are the Opposition suggesting that tax rises should be put in place to fund local authorities across the country? That would mean taxpayers in Cornwall paying so that Sadiq Khan can subsidise travel for Londoners. I do not believe that would be right. Or are they saying that we should take money away from other essential public services to fund the council tax from other Government budgets? If so, they need to say where the money would come from.
I am sure that the Liberal Democrats and independent councillors who run Cornwall Council would love to hide away their spending from local taxpayers, but the whole point of council tax is that councils are answerable to local taxpayers for the decisions that they make. In Cornwall, we have many examples of the Lib Dem-independent administration wasting money, such as funding an office in Brussels, even though we have now left the European Union—wanting to continue it at a cost of tens of thousands of pounds a year—or a £2 million failed IT system that hardly anyone has used.
I believe it is right that local council tax is raised by local councillors who have to answer to their electorate for the decisions that they make.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) [V]
Let me just start with a point that I think many of us will share: in these debates about numbers, statistics and finances, we must remember the lives that are at stake.
Most of us will never forget the stories of love and loss that we have heard this year, stories such as those I heard from the family of Sarah Scully. Their mum, Sarah, went into hospital and said goodbye to her family at the hospital door. Sarah was pregnant. She had to be given a caesarean section, but was so ill she had to be put into an induced coma. Tragically, she died before she was ever able to hold her newborn baby in her arms. Or stories such as Monica’s. She had been married to her husband since she was a teenager. They both got covid, but went into different hospitals. She got the news from her husband that she had feared by text message: “Told just 24 to 48 hours to live.” Or stories such as Bishop Windsor’s, who buried so many people in his congregation that he did not know how that congregation would ever recover from their agony of loss. Now, after all that agony and pain, and after all the anxiety of the job losses, in Britain’s second city we are being handed a bill—a bill to make good on the underfunding of this Government.
Last May, we wrote a cross-party letter to the Minister to warn that the costs of covid in our city would total some £282 million. That included the £92 million extra for social care, to cover the costs of PPE that never arrived or to ensure that there was a safe social care system after the protective ring around care homes failed, and £95 million in lost income, as well as business rates going down and council tax support going up. It is true that the Secretary of State provided some grants to make good on that, but as of last year, we were still £100 million short because our council, led by Councillor Ian Ward, decided to step up and help protect the people of our city where there were shortcomings from the Government. Now, what was the result of that? A 4.99% increase in council tax—£72 a year for a band D home.
How on earth can it be right that council tax payers in places such as Surrey are being cushioned, when council tax payers in Birmingham and the west midlands are being punished? We took the Secretary of State at his word when he told us that he would ensure that there were the resources we needed to do the job. He has reneged on that. It is people—people who are going through hell on earth—who are now being asked to pick up a bill for Government underfunding. That is simply not right, and I, along with my colleagues, urge the Government to think again.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) [V]
I listened to the previous speaker, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). The sad things he is telling us go right across the country, and that is why the Government have put a staggering £36 billion into local authorities and local businesses. Some £4.6 billion of that has been given in unprecedented, unring-fenced grants to those local authorities, and many of them, particularly the Labour ones, should be looking over their shoulder at how they have been spending the money. Their largesse is often outrageous.
It is interesting to compare three south London councils: Southwark, Lambeth and Wandsworth. All three are very similar, in that they are London local authorities, all with similar needs and a similar population. All have similar inner-city problems. They are neighbours. The first two are Labour-controlled, and have been through a considerable period of time as Labour-controlled councils. They have a reputation for high council taxes, without the quality of services to match. Wandsworth is a Conservative-controlled council. It has a reputation for high-quality services and low council tax. The central Government grant to Lambeth is approximately 15% higher than that to Wandsworth. The grant to Southwark is approximately 20% higher. The grant per head of the population is approximately 20% higher for both the Labour authorities.
If one looks at the council tax of those authorities, after the removal of the Mayor’s precept, Wandsworth’s council tax for this financial year at band D is approximately 40% that of the two Labour authorities, and it provides better services. Those councils should look to their expenditure. That is where they should be looking, but I guess they will not.
We all recognise that covid has put all local authorities under considerable pressure, but that is no excuse to agree the motion we are considering, which would cover the inability of many Labour authorities to better manage their services. They should use this opportunity for the sake of the public to keep their council tax rises right down, if not to zero.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) [V]
When the Secretary of State said that the Government stood ready to do whatever is necessary to support councils in their response to the pandemic, council leaders at the sharp end of responding to the pandemic were entitled to take him at his word, and they were right to do so. It is an absolute betrayal that the Secretary of State has since gone back on his word and that councils face a total shortfall across all local authorities of £2.6 billion. We can compare that with the billions the Government have wasted during this crisis on contracts handed out to people with strong links to the Conservative party and people who have been donors to the Conservative party. Those contracts have failed to live up to what they were supposed to be delivering, all while local authorities face such a huge shortfall. It is unconscionable.
In Birmingham, we face a shortfall of £207 million, and the Government have not even pledged half of that amount. Over the next two years, our council is expecting an additional spend of £55 million on adult social care, £11.4 million on children’s social care, £9.5 million on education and £2.3 million on PPE. Which of those, I ask the Secretary of State, is superfluous to requirements? Which of those is an add-on or a waste of money? None of them—they are part of the statutory responsibilities of our local government. In Birmingham, we are expecting a total loss of £44 million in business rates and £20 million in our council tax receipts. Given the state of the economy, does anyone seriously think that business rates and council tax receipts will recover quickly, if at all? The changes that are occurring to the high street, as I speak, mean that the hight street is changing beyond all recognition and some of its revenue will never return to local government.
The expectation of a 5% increase in council tax implicit in the Government’s own numbers is morally wrong, given the promises that the Government made at the start of the pandemic, but it is also wrong that the Government continue to pass the buck on funding for local government. For a decade they have succeeded in devolving the blame for their cuts, but they know that the biggest factor that is driving up expenditure of local government is adult social care. We have an ageing population, and that brings with it increasing costs, much of which are currently picked up by council tax payers. This method of funding is simply not sustainable.
The pandemic has brought into clear focus the parlous, frighteningly fragile state of our adult social care. It is a dereliction of duty that the Government have for 10 long years failed to come up with a sustainable solution to the adult social care crisis, preferring to let councils and families muddle through. That cannot continue. I urge the Government to change course and come up with fairer, more sustainable funding for local government.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]
Before being elected to Parliament, I had the honour of being a local councillor in Dudley, including serving as shadow finance cabinet member. Having seen Labour’s record on council tax when running Dudley Council and when in power nationally, I am amazed that Labour Members have the sheer brass neck to talk about council tax. In the six years when we had both a Labour Government and a Labour-run council, Dudley’s council tax rose by more than 45%—by twice the rate it has gone up over the past six years. Since being a Member of Parliament, I have heard Labour Members in this House and Labour councils around the country demanding that the referendum cap be scrapped, yet now they attack an increase raising that cap by 1% more than last year—an increase that is earmarked to fund social care. How I wish that this change was the result of some damascene conversion, but sadly the reality is more cynical.
As a Conservative, I want all taxes to be as low as possible for hard-working families in our communities, but at the same time I know that the vital services that local councils provide have to be paid for. I declare an interest, as I have a brother who works in social care. To meet the urgent care of more people being likely to need greater and more expensive social care, for longer in their lives, the cost will have to be shared between central Government, local government and those who benefit most directly. Government is about making difficult choices, but instead of addressing those choices, the Opposition’s response is, “Can’t someone else pay for it?” That is not principled leadership; it is cynical opportunism. The public expect us to work together to find solutions to the greatest issues facing our country, and there can be no greater challenge than reforming social care.
A 1% increase in the cap allowed for the earmarked rise in council tax for social care works out at less than £40 per year for a household in Dudley—less than £1.20 per month. It is a necessary short-term measure while long-term reform is properly considered. We must find a sustainable solution to social care that is fair to those who need care, fair to those who provide it, and fair to the taxpayers both locally and nationally who will have to pay a share. The people we represent deserve better than the ham-fisted attempts today to score political points at the expense of short-changing our social care system.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) [V]
Before entering Parliament, I spent my entire working life in local government. Local government as an institution is one of the great pillars of our democracy. It is in every sense the frontline, providing the bread-and-butter services our communities and our people rely on day in, day out. I cannot be more earnest in delivering this message from the frontline: morale has never been more crushed or in such short supply within local government than it has for this last decade. Half a billion pounds has been slashed from my own council in Liverpool in the past 10 years and more than £10 billion from local government overall, with a postcode lottery where the Tory shires are cushioned from the devastation inflicted on councils across the north of England.
The disturbing irony of it all is that the Conservatives claim to be no big believer in the central state, yet trash the very institutions that have the expertise and know-how to put local people in charge of their communities’ own destiny. They talk a good game on devolution, but we know in the north that the reality is quite the opposite. Meagre powers with little resource do not deliver real change, nor do they come anywhere close to levelling up. The Conservative party talks an even mightier game on tax and spend, but there is nothing to justify such assertions if the modus operandi is to shift the tax burden from progressive taxation to the most regressive of taxes, council tax. The most sinister swindle of them all is when local people receive their council tax bill. The top does not read “Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government” but “Liverpool City Council”, “Salford City Council” or “Leeds City Council”. I dare say that if the opposite were true and blame was directed where it truly belongs, to Whitehall, the Government would think twice about backing councils into a corner like this.
Social care is a case in point. If this Government in all their delusions honestly believe the way to put adult social care on a truly sustainable financial footing is to pillage the pockets of local taxpayers with huge council tax hikes that let the wealthiest off the hook and allow the poorest to shoulder the greatest burden, they are in for a shock. Squeezing the tax base in areas of high deprivation to subsidise an inadequate adult social care business will never ever provide the solutions our people need as our population grows older and therefore more dependent on such services.
This Government have abjectly failed to live up to their own mantra of “whatever it takes” when it comes to local government. Our councils are delivering despite the most difficult circumstances. Instead of forcing more of them into the humiliation of section 114 notices, let us restore essential government grants, cancel the council tax hike and keep the money in the pocket of working-class people.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) [V]
As a former councillor in Wolverhampton, I want to thank City of Wolverhampton Council for its work during the pandemic to get Government support to our most vulnerable residents. Delivering help at a local level is often more efficient and more effective, and I welcome the recent announcement of the holiday food and activities programme, which will be so beneficial to children in my constituency.
The Government have also provided a huge level of funding to local government to manage the pandemic. During the first lockdown, I drove a food parcel van each week out of the Aldersley food hub. Although it may have had a council logo whacked on every box, it was directly and entirely funded by this Conservative Government. I am very proud of that. A total of £148 million of covid funding has been channelled through Wolverhampton city council to support our businesses and our most vulnerable people in addition to un-ring-fenced funding—millions of pounds of additional support for food and essential supplies, for rapid testing for infection control, for the winter grants scheme and to help rough sleepers, among other things. Next year funding for my council from Government will rise by 4.6%.
I am sure that the political football of council tax will be continually kicked around, but what I want to speak about is value for money for their council tax for all our residents around the UK. I want to recognise the important work carried out by councils across the country, but I also want to use this speech to urge more people to hold their councils to account and to get involved in the decisions that shape council spending. I was disappointed at how few people took part in local budget consultations when I was a councillor. I know that attending such meetings might seem less attractive than an evening in the pub, but these decisions are important and affect local planning decisions and local services. I find that many people do not have a good understanding of where decisions are made. As an MP, I am called out on plans to pedestrianise the city centre, high salaries in the civic centre, the disastrous Civic Hall renovation and £130,000 being spent on award ceremonies. All these local decisions are made at council level.
As my constituency has a Labour council and is an example of a seat that will benefit from the Government’s levelling-up agenda, I will continue to push for more money to come to Wolverhampton, and I would like to hear our communities speak up at local level, ensuring that they get value for money and that this investment is wisely spent.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) [V]
May I start by praising both Blackpool and Wyre Councils, controlled by two different political parties, for their superb efforts on behalf of local constituents?
There was a fascinating letter in The Times last week from a lady in Hertfordshire, accusing the Conservatives of complaining about Labour’s playing politics with Opposition day debates. She wrote:
“The opposition had asked for a serious debate, which is exactly what parliament is for.”
I agree that serious debate is what we are here for, but she must never have watched any of these Opposition day debates; or if she has, she must surely be seriously disappointed at the poor quality of contributions from Labour Members.
There is a real irony in Labour lecturing us about council tax. I know that Labour does not like losing elections—who does?—but it takes some nerve to expect a Conservative Government to bail out Labour councils for the calamitous choices they have made and that they fear putting before the voters in their local areas. This debate is like a dog riding a bicycle: the Labour party is not doing it very well at all, but it is astonishing that it should even try to do so in the first place.
If anyone wants to know about Labour’s plans for local government spending, they need only look around them. Council tax doubled under the last Labour Government. Sadiq Khan in London wants a 10% increase because he cannot put a decent transport strategy in place. In Wales it has gone up by one third, showing just how awful Labour is at managing its own devolved services in the Principality.
Let us look at what the Government are actually proposing: an increase of up to 2% for general purposes and of up to 3% for social care, to address increasing demand for both children’s and elderly services. Labour has no answer to how to meet that increased demand. The Government protect resident interests with a referendum block on rises above 5%. Labour wants to abolish that—it hates the idea of local people telling it what to do. To avoid any local accountability, it advocates a nationally set, progressive property tax, with an end to the single person’s discount. Where is the local flexibility in that?
Labour’s attitude overlooks all the extra covid funding that the Government have given to local councils, including up to £150 million in my constituency, spent prudently and wisely on behalf of local people. I do not like the term “left behind”, but one thing is for sure: it is Labour that is leaving behind communities in constituencies such as mine. It is a party bereft of ideas and of interest in anything outside its London-centric metropolitan elite who know nothing of reality in towns like mine.
The adage of council tax is devastatingly simple and is just a few words: “Conservative councils cost you less.”
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) [V]
I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Prior to taking my place in the House, I spent the past 16 years as a councillor in all three tiers of local government. Most recently I was the finance lead of an upper-tier authority, and previously I was the finance lead for a lower-tier authority, and we did not increase council tax over many years.
It is probably worth repeating what councils do. They are very much on the frontline of what our residents see, including waste collection, council tax collection, housing, leisure, social services, education and highways. May I take this opportunity to thank all those excellent council officers up and down the country who have made sure that, despite the pandemic, residents have been at the forefront of receiving support?
On localism and devolution, of which I am a massive fan, politicians at the local level have a responsibility to make tough decisions, and residents have the opportunity at every election to confirm whether they think a politician made the right decision. This Government have given local authorities the option of increasing their council tax by up to 5%, and it is down to local councillors to make that decision.
I look forward to a long-term solution being found for the issue of social care, and I know that this Government are continuing to work on that very difficult decision. It is worth repeating, however, that those councils that have grasped the opportunity to become self-sufficient rather than reliant on handouts have also fared best during this pandemic.
Basic economics dictate the need to either increase income or reduce expenditure. The focus should always remain on value for money. We as politicians are only custodians of other people’s—that is, taxpayers’—money. However, as a Conservative, I very much believe in having a safety net, and I am glad that this Conservative Government have given us the £500 million council tax hardship fund to ensure that those who are not able to pay their council tax have the support they need.
The other thing I wanted to bring up is that each council has a duty to collect council tax, and it was interesting to see from my research that the 10 worst offenders up and down the country in terms of council tax collection happen to be Labour. I urge all councillors and council staff to focus on making sure that the policy position they implement means that we do not need to cut or reduce services when it is not necessary to do so. I will leave it at that. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]
We have the worst recession of any major economy. The virus is still not under control. Many thousands of my constituents in Liverpool and Knowsley have lost their jobs, have lost income and are facing wage freezes, while those on universal credit are about to lose the £1,000 uplift that has been keeping the wolf from the door. The self-employed are excluded from any help at all, and many are now wondering how they are going to feed their children. Indeed, many people are already relying in increasing numbers on food banks.
Now is not the time for the Government to force councils to hit these people with a 5% council tax hike to balance budgets. That will hit the poorest hardest. Liverpool has had to make cuts of over £420 million in the last nine years, as it has lost 63% of its Government grant. Knowsley has lost over 50% of its grant and has had to make over £100 million in cuts. These are two of the councils worst hit by Lib Dem and Tory cuts since 2010. If Liverpool had faced a cut at the average level over those years, it would still have an extra £123 million to enable it to avoid increasing council tax.
Over three quarters of housing stock in Liverpool is in council tax bands A and B, so it raises less money—only £1.5 million for every 1% increase. The poorest areas are hit hardest. When the Government mandate council tax increases as the main way of increasing the income of councils—they have increasingly done that—it hits poorer people harder and the poorest areas hardest. Those being expected to meet this extra financial burden, such as council tax payers in Liverpool and Knowsley, are the least able to do so.
A quarter of all UK households went into the covid crisis with less than £100 in the bank. Some 3.6 million people nationally are trapped in insecure work, and their finances are not resilient. In Liverpool, council tax support is provided to about a third of all council tax payers, costing £30 million a year, yet one in four of those receiving that help are actually in work. Telling the council that it must hit those people hard again is not a fair way of doing things. Many councils will have to consider making major cuts to services next year—the exact same services everybody will be depending on to help the recovery. The jobs that are lost will be those of the very people who have worked so hard and put their lives at risk to deliver key public services during the ravages of covid.
The Government must provide a solution to local government finance that takes into account the already entrenched disadvantage in constituencies such as mine, and they must seek to address it, rather than just assuming that those with the least can pay the most and attacking Labour councils for spending more. Those councils cannot easily raise more money from council tax, because they have low band properties, and people just cannot afford to pay. That will not work. It is a recipe for further poverty. The Government have to change their view.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) [V]
In my constituency, I have two local authorities—Dover District Council and Kent County Council. I have been working closely on the ground with both councils during the pandemic. The response by the council officers has been absolutely outstanding, particularly the senior team in Dover, led by Nadeem Aziz, Roger Walton, Tim Ingleton and Brinley Hill, together with our dedicated Conservative leaders, Councillor Trevor Bartlett of Dover and Councillor Roger Gough of Kent.
Reliance on local government has never been stronger. That is why it has been so right to ensure that it has the financial and resource support to deliver on the ground. Undoubtedly, there are financial challenges at this time both nationally and locally, but there is no doubt whatsoever that the scale of funding and support to the councils in my area makes a real difference. For Dover and for Kent, the scale of financial support from Government has been immense—getting on for £100 million in covid additional funding alone. The Conservatives’ support and funding will keep down council tax bills. My area has a strong tourism and hospitality sector. We have received £48 million in business grants and business rates relief. We are set better for the future, with a £3.2 million award for future high streets funding.
In addition to managing the pandemic, the councils in my area have two big expenditure items to fund and deliver, which cost more for every council tax payer because of the Opposition’s failure to support sensible, Conservative policies. These items are social care and illegal migration. Kent County Council has calculated that it has a funding hole in its reserves of over £24 million directly related to the cumulative costs of illegal entry into our country, whether through the small boats route or lorries coming into Dover. This is in addition to local policing and other costs.
If the Opposition want to reduce the tax impact for people in my constituency from illegal migration, I expect them to fully support the Conservative Government’s changes to bring in fair migration, tackle illegal migration and enable returns. If they do not, then they simply show that not only do Labour councils cost you more, but the Labour Opposition want to cost you more, too. Only a Conservative Government are committed to both doing the right thing and costing you less.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
Council tax is flawed and regressive. It disproportionately impacts on the poorest the hardest, and not just on the poorest people in society, but on the poorest areas of England. Not every area has the same council tax base. The two boroughs that I represent are a case in point. Tameside is predominantly made up of band A and B homes. There is nothing the council can do about that: those are the facts on the ground. Stockport is more mixed, with many more properties in higher council tax bands. That means Stockport can raise more money than Tameside can—it is basic maths—but neither can raise enough from council tax alone to meet basic service standards set by Government. They are both grant-dependent councils. They both need Government top-ups to function.
Some councils are fortunate. They can raise enough from council tax and business rates to meet local needs. They do not need a central Government grant. But all past Governments of all political colours have recognised this in-built unfairness and have redistributed grants to councils with low tax bases and high needs to even things out—until recently. This is the sheer unfairness of what this Government are doing. They have cut grant funding by half across England, but that is an average. In some areas, it is over 60%: 60p in every £1 gone. That is a lot of lost income for Tameside and Stockport. There is smoke and mirrors from Government. Ministers then tell councils they have more flexibility—“You can plug your gap by increasing council tax”—except that it does not work because it brings in nothing like the same amount as the funding cut by Ministers and there is still a gap. So the poorest areas with the highest needs in social care and children’s services still have to cut services.
Then came covid-19. I was the Secretary of State’s shadow this time last year and I was grateful to him for briefing me about local government stepping up to the covid challenge—and, boy, didn’t they do just that? I pay tribute to those councillors, officers and staff for all they did and are continuing to do. But I do not think that I am breaking any confidences, because it has been said in public, too: Ministers guaranteed to me that they would reimburse in full those already cash-strapped councils to do what it takes. That has not happened.
Here we are in the grip of covid still and councils are being told, “If you want to plug your gap, you need to increase your council tax.” Except it does not plug the gap. It does not come close. Residents lose out twice: they pay more, they get less. And the blame is devolved to councillors, not Ministers. That is why I support this motion tonight.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) [V]
This Opposition debate is a purely political stunt and Opposition Members should look a little closer to home, where their party is in government in Wales. Welsh Labour has presided over more than two decades of council tax rises, with further rises planned this year. What is more, on average, council tax has risen 30% faster in Labour-run Wales than in England. Those types of increases have caused council tax to treble in Wales, from around £495 in 1998 to £1,667 in the financial year ending 2021.
Residents in my constituency within Bridgend County Borough Council, under a Labour-controlled council and a Labour-controlled devolved Administration, have seen increase after increase. Last year it was 4.5% and they are likely to see yet another increase of 3.9% this year. That equates to an average Bridgend home paying about £320 a year more than they did just five years ago. The approach to council tax is one where the people of Bridgend are treated as cash cows while services are being cut. It is hitting working families hard during what has been a very difficult year for them.
The UK Government have supported councils during the covid-19 pandemic, with a package worth more than £30 billion helping councils in England to keep their council tax lower than that in Wales. The Welsh Labour Government should match the ambition of the UK Government, support their councils to keep bills low, give families more space, and not be afraid to allow residents to veto high rises, as has been allowed in England since 2011 thanks to the Localism Act 2011.
The people of Bridgend deserve better than the inevitable year after year of Labour rises in their council tax, so I will not be walking through the Lobby to support this motion tonight. Moreover, I urge right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches to press their colleagues in Wales to end this ever-increasing council tax rise, which is burdening my constituents in Bridgend.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab) [V]
I would like to personally pay tribute to the hard-working staff of Hartlepool Borough Council.
Over the last decade, austerity has led to public sector cuts to local authorities, which have caused major job losses and cuts to vital services. Hartlepool has seen this on a grand scale. Because of our high levels of deprivation, growing costs and dwindling funding from Whitehall, our council tax is proportionately some of the highest anywhere in the country. As one of the most deprived local authorities in the country, departments such as children’s and adults’ services were stretched in capacity prior to the pandemic, despite the best efforts of council staff. Poverty levels, especially child poverty levels, have risen dramatically over the last decade. Local government costs for children’s services have increased in line with those demands, even before the cost of the pandemic has to be taken into account. My constituents are already paying through the nose for a bear minimum of services, which the council can just about afford. Three successive Tory Governments have caused this situation, even without consideration of the effects of the pandemic on local government finances. The Chancellor promised no new tax hikes this year, so instead he is trying to introduce them by stealth through local councils. People will see right through that. Even the local Conservatives in Hartlepool recognise that the plan would be a disaster for the people of Hartlepool and that no member of the public will respect any politician who tries to force the cost of this pandemic on to them. Locally, this council tax rise is likely to be hidden in the adult services precept to avoid embarrassment for the Tory and Brexit leadership. Hartlepool Borough Council is just about managing to deal with the current cost of the pandemic; however, that will not be so if this drags on much longer.
I am too aware that increases in council tax will hit those in the most precarious financial situations: young families; low-income families; young workers; low-income workers, and self-employed people whose businesses have been failed by the Government. The pandemic has highlighted the role and importance in our society of key workers, who are essential to its functioning; public sector and local council workers were high on the list of those key workers we clapped for week in, week out.
The Government can seemingly always find millions to throw at consultancy fees, yet with spiralling costs, millions in debt, thousands grieving the loss of loved ones and policy failure after policy failure on covid-19, local government needs proper funding. This year of all years, it is ill-timed, ill-judged and simply wrong to neglect it.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) [V]
The national effort against coronavirus has relied heavily on the hard work of council employees, and I thank all the dedicated staff delivering local services in High Peak. There is no doubt that councils have been under incredible pressure throughout the pandemic, and I am pleased that the Government have done as much as possible to back them up, ensuring that vital services can continue to help the most vulnerable. Over £10 billion has already been provided.
I am grateful to the Opposition for the opportunity to debate council tax, although I am slightly surprised that they chose this topic, given the shambolic record of so many Labour councils across the country. It is important to point out that, despite the cleverly worded motion in front of the House today, no council is being forced by the Government to increase council tax. I can only assume that the Opposition are against giving voters local control of how their council raises revenue and balances local budgets. Nevertheless, this is a good opportunity to debate how we can fundamentally reshape the tax system after covid to the benefit of the whole country.
I encourage Members to read the report “Levelling up the tax system” recently published by the levelling-up taskforce and the think-tank Onward. So much of the debate around levelling up is focused on Government spending, and understandably so—places such as High Peak are crying out for more investment in our infrastructure—but that is only half of the levelling-up equation. We also have to think seriously about how we raise money for services and the impact that that has on different parts of the country. Nowhere is that more obvious than with the council tax.
Average council tax per head in London is the lowest in England, at £481 per person. That is a fifth lower than in more deprived regions, such as the east of England and the south-west, and as a share of post-tax income, Londoners pay half of what households in Yorkshire and the north-east typically pay. That difference is getting even starker. London has seen its share of total council tax revenue decline steadily despite average house prices more than doubling in the capital, yet councils in London typically get a much higher central Government grant, despite the fact that they are able to benefit from much greater revenue-raising opportunities such as parking and that services are typically cheaper to deliver given the population density. While it is true that London generates £1 in every £5 of tax receipts, we must remember that London generates less tax than any other region as a share of GDP.
London is a great city, and I am certainly not here to pull it down; I just want to see places such as High Peak levelled up. I strongly urge the Government to think carefully about how we can make the tax system, including council tax, fairer. There is a real opportunity to be bold and deliver lasting reform. A good place to start would be requiring a regional impact assessment of different tax measures as standard practice as part of the Budget process.
While the end of the pandemic is finally in sight, there is still a long way to go. Getting the vaccine rolled out and helping the most vulnerable during lockdown requires action from every level of government, including our councils. Instead of tying their hands, like this motion sets out to do, let us figure out new ways of making the tax system fairer for everyone.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) [V]
The Secretary of State’s speech was really one of the most disingenuous that I have heard for a long time. He knows full well that Labour councils do not want to raise council tax; they have been forced to raise council tax because, for the 10 years before the pandemic hit, Tory-led Governments cut funding disproportionately hard for deprived areas and Labour councils. For almost a decade, the toughest decisions and the most painful Government cuts have been handed down—effectively outsourced—to local authorities, which have to pass them on to communities such as mine in Manchester, Withington.
I was a councillor having to try to make some of those awful decisions. The cuts forced on us by the Government since 2011 would have been impossible to mitigate by cost savings alone. Councils had to increase their income. In Manchester, the council sold part of its share in the airport to guarantee an annual dividend in order to help make up the income shortfalls. That was innovative and successful, with the council doing the right thing to protect services for its residents. But this Government lockdown has had an impact. The flights stopped and the airport dividend was hit—£71 million-worth of impact. Manchester, like many others, has been doubly hit: by the spending pressures necessary to combat covid; and by the revenue that has been lost as a direct consequence of Government restrictions.
In the midst of the greatest crisis that we have had in generations, a massive share of the burden continues to fall on councils. The financial impact of the pandemic in Manchester, like the impact in town and cities across the country, has been catastrophic: £152 million this year. With only £108 million of Government funding available, we have a shortfall of £44 million. Even with the maximum permitted council tax rise—a rise that no one wants to introduce—Manchester faces £50 million-worth of cuts. Last March, the Government promised to give councils what they need to deal with the pandemic. They must come through on that promise, take into account loss of revenue and fund councils properly so that this council tax is not forced on local people.
In addition, councils need from central Government the ability to carry out financial planning for the long term. The biggest chunk of local authority spending is on social care for adults and young people. We all know that the cost of social care will rise as the population continues to age, yet the Government’s long-promised plan to tackle the social care crisis has failed to materialise. Councils need an improved settlement for social care, and they need it to be built into funding settlements, not just as annual grants, because, although the Better Care grant is important, councils need to know that the funding will be there for years to come. On such a fundamental issue, they need to be able to plan for the long term.
Our councils do a great job in difficult circumstances. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) in congratulating Manchester City Council on its response to the flood alerts in south Manchester last week. It needs proper funding to do that great job. It is past time that the Government stopped treating local authorities as a vehicle for outsourcing cuts and blame, and funded them to be the crucial parts of our civic life that they really are.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) [V]
Many councils have done a great job adapting to the ever-changing situation and supporting local residents. It is right, therefore, that the Government have given local authorities an unrivalled and unprecedented £10 billion package of support. In Stockton, this has meant an extra £110 million in funding—much of it unring-fenced, allowing councils to spend on local priorities. Money has also been given to councils to meet the cost of lost revenues, to support enforcement and infection control, to support and help the vulnerable, to cover business rates relief and to provide a huge package of support to local businesses—yes, huge challenges and costs for local councils, met with a huge package of support from the Government, so much so that my local council is still deliberating over how to spend some of it.
At this time, one would hope that many councils would look at how to shield residents from any unnecessary increases in council tax, but Stockton Council is a Labour-led council, which means that it will continue to tax like there is no tomorrow and spend like no one is watching. It is a fact: people are better off with the Conservatives. The average resident living under a Conservative council pays significantly less in council tax, while enjoying great local services. Under the last Labour Government, council tax bills across the country doubled. In Wales, where Labour is still in power, they have trebled.
In Stockton over the last five years, council tax has gone up by more than 20%, and that hurts those on fixed and limited incomes most. Not only are residents asked to pay more; the council is getting its priorities wrong, slashing spending on youth services while we have seen increased spending on press and communications, more on events and more on fireworks. When the private sector looked to reopen Stockton’s Globe theatre, it was warmly welcomed. It is a great opportunity to breathe life into our town centre. The original plan, under the private sector, was for it to open in 2012 at a cost of £4 million, but unfortunately the council got control of the project and it has now cost more than £26 million and counting, and it still has not opened.
It is said that if we look after the pennies, the pounds will look after themselves; my local Labour council looks after neither. Public money is there to benefit local people, including the most vulnerable, and therefore every penny counts. We have seen my council spend £1,900 on a rusty metal door, £62,000 on a pair of bollards, around £10,000 a year on VIP soirées where councillors can eat and drink for free. An allowance scheme has seen the chair and vice-chair of committees receive as much as £1,500 per meeting between them even if they do not bother to turn up, and we have seen council officers fly out at taxpayers’ expense to watch street theatre performed in Montpellier, Copenhagen and Amsterdam.
Councils have a moral responsibility to those on limited and fixed incomes to justify every penny they spend. It is right that locally elected councillors can make decisions about local taxation and spending, but with such rights come responsibilities.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
To govern is to choose, and the Government have chosen to make local authorities choose between cutting services at this time of all times and imposing a 5% council tax rise.
I have always opposed the council tax since the Conservatives introduced it in a rush in the early ’90s in the poll tax debacle. It was always a wrong form of taxation; it takes more from those who have the least, and it takes less from those who have the most. It is a regressive form of tax, and for the Government to force local authorities—red, yellow and blue—to increase that burden on the families who struggle the most during a pandemic is utterly inexcusable.
It is a choice that the Government have made to increase council tax by 5% and to hit the worst those families who struggle the most, but there are other choices that this Government have made at the same time. The stamp duty holiday has given a boost of tens of thousands of pounds to people who want to buy second homes. Therefore, people who are struggling by on the minimum wage, paying a much higher proportion of their salary in council tax now than those who are wealthier, get a hit, yet those who can afford not just one home but two or more get a benefit worth tens of thousands of pounds from this Government, who have chosen to give it to them.
I suggest to the Minister that there is something better he could do with council tax. In communities such as mine in the lakes and dales, where as many as 85% of the properties are second homes—boltholes for folks who are well-off enough mainly to live somewhere else—the impact is colossal. Every single one of those homes is sending no child to the local school and providing no demand for the post office or the bus service, and so those services and facilities end up closing, as they have done in many communities in my part of the world. Yet there are things the Government could do to ameliorate that. Instead of imposing a huge council tax burden on those who are struggling to pay now, why not increase council tax on those who are well-off enough to have more than one home and recycle that money back into local communities?
Furthermore, why do the Government not deal with their own consultation that closed nearly three years ago on whether to close the loophole that allows second-home owners to pretend that they are a business? They claim business rate relief, and get business rates taken off altogether—so pay no council tax and no business rates. If this Government cared about levelling up, they would not be levelling down Lake district communities by benefiting those wealthy enough to have more than one home while hitting those who are on low incomes to start with.
The Government have chosen to impose this council tax rise, and council tax always hits the less well-off more than those who are better off. This is the opportunity that the Government have to change their mind, to benefit not just the lakes and dales but the whole of the country as it struggles through this terrible crisis.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) [V]
Newham is one of the worst hit boroughs in the country. We have the second highest level of child poverty and the highest level of homelessness. We have had the highest furlough numbers, and our covid infection rates have regularly been among the highest in the country, especially during recent weeks. There are no signs that our difficulties are going away any time soon. In fact, I am afraid that many in Newham might not be able to get a vaccine for many months, despite significant vulnerability due to health conditions and ethnicity. The fact that we have a young population means that restrictions may well be placed on our local economy for longer, destroying the hopes that many had just a few weeks ago.
My constituents need to know that the decent public services and support on which they rely are going to continue. For that, at bare minimum, the Government will need to compensate our council fully for lost revenue and the added costs of covid. Sadly, the signs are not good. Currently, Newham Council estimates that it will lose £16 million of income this year due to the virus and will only be compensated for £8 million of that—barely half. Frankly, that has a real cost to people’s lives.
In Newham, a large number of small businesses, self-employed people and employees have been excluded from Government support. When support is not there—when it is not universal—discretionary council funds are all the more important, but with our very high levels of infection, almost all of Newham’s funding for self-isolation payments has been allocated. To beat the virus and support our overwhelmed NHS, we need more funding for discretionary payments, and we need it now.
We need a financial settlement that provides for necessary spending without raising taxes on our residents at this worst possible time. An increase in council tax can be ill afforded by my constituents, but the Government are providing no other option. The Chancellor said, “whatever it takes.” Well, let me tell him what it takes: it takes Government to properly fund councils, at the very least for covid costs. It takes the Government financially looking after everyone in need, including the excluded. We must not make the poorest pay for this crisis.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) [V]
As a Welsh MP and former councillor, I would have greater respect for the Labour party if it practised in Wales what it is preaching here this afternoon, but I can assure the House that it is not. Not only has Wales seen some of the highest increases in council tax in the UK since 2010, but the latest proposed local government funding settlement by the Welsh Labour Government in Cardiff has discriminated against a significant number of councils by giving low increases in funding support.
That has been particularly the case in north and mid-Wales, where the average increase in Welsh Government funding support is below the national average, whereas in predominantly Labour-run south Wales, it is above the average, thereby reinforcing the unfairness of the north-south divide. For example, in my constituency of Clwyd South in north Wales, Wrexham County Borough Council has a provisional Welsh Government grant increase of only 2.3%, which is the second lowest in Wales and compares with an average increase in funding support of 4.1% in south Wales. It means that, with the heavy burdens of covid, flooding, snow, increased social care and many other factors, Wrexham County Borough Council will be forced to increase council tax by 6.95%, despite being a well-run council.
It is within the Welsh Government’s power to review this funding settlement, given that it is subject to consultation until 9 February, and I hope that they will do so. But Opposition Members should admit that the Welsh Labour Government are acting in a manner contrary to the terms of the motion before the House. Furthermore, the Welsh Government have the financial means to do this, as they have still not spent about £1 billion of the £5.3 billion that they have received from the UK Government in additional funding due to the coronavirus pandemic.
The approach of the Welsh Government is in stark contrast to that of the UK Government, who have stepped in and confirmed more than £10 billion of direct additional support for councils during the pandemic, plus billions more to ease financial pressures, with councils also receiving a significant boost to their budgets in April in the most generous funding settlement for a decade. In conclusion, I hope that the Labour Government in Cardiff will look to the example set by the UK Government and provide the financial support that is badly needed in these exceptionally difficult times for councils with low average funding settlements in Wales.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I wish to speak in favour of the motion.
These have been testing times for local authorities in West Yorkshire. Just today, the “Cities Outlook 2021” report has revealed that the economic impact of covid has meant that levelling up will now be four times harder than pre-covid. As Gordon Brown said today, the virus has a political dynamic: it cruelly exposes our weaknesses, with higher deaths among the lowest paid and an unfair economic impact on women and black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. This hit to our community wellbeing is, of course, on top of all the other too-familiar tales of council budget cuts and job losses.
The Government’s encouragement, saying that they would do whatever it takes, has now turned into a £2.6 billion funding gap. The LGA tells us that cuts have totalled £15 billion for councils in England. That is devastating, given the fact that between 2011 and 2018 the number of looked-after children grew by 11%. The number of people over 65 in need is up by 14% and the number of those unintentionally homeless is up by 35%. These are real people, their lives brutally changed beyond recognition through no fault of their own.
West Yorkshire councils have stepped up and made sure that food and medicine gets to those who are shielding; kept essential services, such as refuse collection and housing maintenance going; provided laptops to disadvantaged students; and worked flat out to get financial support to as many businesses as possible. They decided not to wait for the Government to fund free school meals and took in-house the feeding of hungry children across West Yorkshire. More importantly, they have used local knowledge to transform the failed and chaotic test and trace project into one that actually delivers results.
All that has been done against a background of income cuts. For example, for Leeds City Council, underlying funding from business rates is down 5%. Council tax payments are down, with people ineligible to pay as they are out of work, forcing the council to fill a £25 million black hole from reserves to avoid bankruptcy. Of course, the Government will say that that is why it is important to give councils the chance to raise council tax to pay for extra costs, but hard-working, low-paid families should not be picking up the bill for austerity and the pandemic. There are higher food costs, higher energy bills and the extra costs of home-schooling, which is why we absolutely must retain the £20 uplift to universal credit and why we cannot add yet another extra financial burden on to family expenses, especially when millions have already been excluded from meaningful support.
In this landscape, do the Government really want to increase household bills by £93? Not only is that a poor reward for those who have sacrificed so much, but it is economically illiterate. Shops and businesses need people to go out and buy goods and services, not tighten their belts. I know the Minister will list the financial packages available, but I urge him to do the right thing.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) [V]
I suppose I should thank the Opposition for giving us this chance to talk about the Conservative record on tax and all the support—including an extra £10 billion for councils—that we have put in place during the pandemic. The level of support across the board has been unprecedented in peacetime.
I have a local example of Conservatives’ record on tax versus that of the Labour party. In Conservative Surrey, it was decided that council tax would go up by between 2% and 3% this year, whereas across the border in Labour-run London, the Mayor is looking at a 10% increase. In Labour-run Croydon, which also borders Surrey, the council has mismanaged its finances so badly that is has had, in effect, to declare bankruptcy.
I pay tribute to all my local councillors and council officers in Surrey, who have worked during this time not only to provide a brilliant service to residents but to take a careful look at our public finances and make sure that they are providing value for money for residents. The House will have heard today example after example of Conservatives being better with public taxpayer money. Frankly, no one believes that their taxes would have been lower under a Labour Government. Every single MP on the Opposition Benches stood on a manifesto that committed to hiking taxes in this country by £80 billion, taking them to the highest level ever in peacetime history. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that Labour’s spending plans were not only “colossal” but “simply not credible”.
I want to spend the rest of my time talking about the council tax hardship fund. I am incredibly disappointed that the shadow Secretary of State and every single Labour MP have failed to mention it. This is a fund for which we put aside £500 million last year and £670 million this year, and it is there to help struggling families. Although I fear the Labour party is more interested in playing party politics, it is our duty as MPs to signpost families to the support that is there, instead of playing on their fears.
I notice that on the Labour leader’s Twitter feed today, there is a council tax calculator, which I tried out to see whether it would signpost people towards this support. It did not: it did ask for a variety of contact details that the Labour party could use for further electoral purposes, but it did not offer any real guidance. I urge every Labour MP who is going to be asked by Labour headquarters to pump out these scaremongering graphics later today to actually do their job, and signpost people to the support that this Conservative Government have put in place.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) [V]
Today’s debate is about fairness, and the 5% hike in council tax is not fair: it is not fair on my constituents, and it is not fair on my city. As many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have already said, we are in the midst of an economic crisis. The Government bear some responsibility for the fact that our country faces the worst recession as a result of the pandemic and their failure to properly control the health crisis. This is the worst possible time to be raising taxes, yet this Government are forcing local councils to do just that, even though they know that it will hit families who are already struggling to make ends meet. Of course, those impacts will not fall evenly: they will fall hardest on the places with the highest levels of deprivation and the least ability to make up the shortfall in central Government funding.
Over the past decade, Nottingham City Council has seen its central Government grant cut by hundreds of millions of pounds. It has tried to protect services, the very services that my constituents rely on, but this year, the situation that it and other councils face is more serious than ever. Instead of doing as they promised and standing by councils that did “whatever is necessary” in response to coronavirus, the Government have left them with unreimbursed costs—£28.4 million, in the case of Nottingham City Council. It is not good enough; the Government need to do as they promised, and make up that shortfall.
Almost 40% of Nottingham City Council’s entire budget is spent on adult social care, and that percentage is rising as we face supporting more older and vulnerable residents. Central Government have repeatedly promised to meet the challenge of funding social care, but year after year, they fail to do so. Local councils have no choice but to apply the social care precept, even though in deprived cities such as mine, where demand for services is greatest, it generates far less than in areas with lower levels of demand, where councils can raise more through council tax. The Government’s approach is fundamentally unfair. It seeks to hide the truth of their decision, passing the blame on to local authorities even though they know that council tax is regressive. It is levelling down, instead of levelling up.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
I know I am not the only Member of this House to be slightly bemused by Labour’s apparent sudden concern over tax rises, given its own record. We have already heard about how Labour’s tax plans would hit the pockets of working families with its so-called progressive property tax, which would cost the average household an additional £374 a year, as well as its plans to abolish single person discounts and referendums on high tax rises. But this is not just about future policies; we can also see it from Labour’s own record, especially in London, where my neighbouring borough of Croydon has been led into bankruptcy and my Carshalton and Wallington residents have been punished by a 20.3% rise in the Mayor of London’s share of the council tax since 2016, despite his manifesto promise to keep his share of council tax as low as possible. Now the Mayor wants to raise his share of council tax in London by a further 10%, punishing Londoners for his poor financial management at City Hall.
It is not just Labour that would hit working families with tax rises. We have already heard that Conservative councils charge, on average, £84 a year less in council tax, but the Lib Dems charge more than £132 a year more than Conservative councils. Such an example can be found in my own council, the London Borough of Sutton, where the Lib Dems have joined with the Mayor’s council tax rise for local residents, having raised council tax in the borough by nearly 14% since 2017-18, according to London Councils. The London Borough of Sutton is one of only 23 councils across all the 393 local authorities that is classified as having very high rates of council tax, according to the website Property Data.
The reason often spouted by Labour and Lib Dem councils for their increases is that they do not get enough support, but these tax rises were happening long before the pandemic, and it is clear that this Government have given an unprecedented level of support to local authorities during the pandemic. Over £95 million has been given to Sutton in 2020-21, and so supportive has this finance been that the borough’s finance director said at a council meeting last week that the council was in as good a financial position as it was before the pandemic, thanks to a good level of support from central Government. I suspect that the Lib Dems will never forgive him for saying something so positive.
Residents do not have to settle for councils that waste money and impose higher taxes. We have heard that Conservative-run councils and Conservative Mayors offer better services while charging less council tax. Recovering from the covid pandemic is going to be hard, so more than ever we need Conservative councils and Mayors who are up for the challenge and who are innovative and careful with taxpayers’ money, rather than the high tax and wasteful spending mantra of the Opposition.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
Throughout this crisis, local councils have been on the frontline of fighting covid-19 and I would like to pay tribute to every member of local authority staff across the country for the work they have done over the last year, particularly the staff of Salford City Council. Whether it is through providing support to vulnerable people who need it or ensuring that the bins are emptied, councils are playing a vital role in keeping people safe and well during the pandemic. Despite seeing its budget cut by £211 million over the past decade, Salford City Council has stepped up during the crisis to provide grant support to businesses, put in place extensive infection control measures in care homes to protect residents, and developed contact tracing that is much more effective than the Government’s scheme.
Local councils have more than lived up to their end of the deal; central Government have not. There is still no social care funding settlement, despite the additional costs to social care providers this year. Local authorities do not have the certainty of the resources they need to properly support older and disabled people through the crisis. The Secretary of State said at the start of the first lockdown that the Government stood ready to do whatever was necessary to support councils in their response to coronavirus, but now the Government are asking councils to pass the costs of support for communities during the pandemic directly back to local residents. In the same month that furlough will end for over 16,000 residents in Salford, unless it is extended, the Government want councils to pass a £100 increase on to struggling families.
Council tax is a regressive way to raise funding. The areas that are most able to raise money through this measure are also those that are less deprived. In Surrey, a 5% council tax increase raises £38 million, whereas in Salford that raises only £6 million. Therefore, the measure will raise six times more in Surrey than it will in Salford. The Government should not be allowing vital public services to be subject to this kind of postcode lottery. This is a national crisis and we need national solutions to the problems we are facing.
Greater Manchester has been under more stringent restrictions than other areas since last July, with six months of tight and then tighter restrictions that hit people’s livelihoods and weakened businesses, causing many to fail, and caused mental health stresses affecting the wellbeing of families. Rather than trying to avoid responsibility and shift the burden on to the residents in areas that have been hardest hit by covid, the Government must live up to the commitment they made last spring and do whatever is necessary to support councils during the pandemic. This is no time to impose a 5% council tax rise on families. I join the call on the Government to scrap this inflation-busting tax increase and support councils with the funding they need.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Unfortunately, in Birmingham, we see examples every day of why Labour councillors in the city will choose to put up council tax yet again this year. It seems like we see examples of waste and incompetence every single day. Let us take the Perry Barr bus depot as an example. Because of the Commonwealth games, it should be moved to make way for the athletes’ village—which, by the way, will no longer be the athletes’ village—with the cost to move it 300 metres down the road initially being put at £2 million. It will now cost £16 million. That is incompetence. The leader of the council assured the city council that hosting the Commonwealth games would not impact on its revenue budget. Now, years down the line, we see that it will impact on the revenue budget to the tune of £2 million every single year for the next 40 years, affecting the council’s ability to plough the money into services, which people want to see in their local communities.
We see an example in the form of business grants. The Government have provided millions of pounds-worth of assistance to companies struggling during the pandemic, but is being sat on because of incompetence in getting it out to local businesses on the frontline, which has led to the delays that we have seen in that assistance.
We see an example in the Bristol Road South bus lane, which nobody wanted. The council has tried for years to install it, but it did not have the guts to do a proper consultation and has now imposed it on local people, wasting thousands of pounds. A couple of years ago, the bin dispute put Birmingham City Council on the front of all local and national papers. That cost millions of pounds to fix, and, unfortunately, we are still paying for it.
We see the home to school transport service, which looks after some of our most vulnerable citizens. We see severely disabled children being dropped off at the wrong school and parents being kept in the dark over what time their children will be picked up. That is incompetence. What is the solution to all that we see? It is yet another tinkering around the system, another restructure, another review, and another report to be put on a shelf.
Last week, we saw proposals to spend half a million pounds on new directors in the city council. This restructure will cost £3.6 million—this after the council spent no less than £2 million on non-disclosure agreements, or gagging clauses, for city council officers who have left. It is funny, Madam Deputy Speaker, how it is never Labour councillors running the council who get restructured out of the council; it is always the council officers who have to bear the brunt. So, unfortunately, all the noise from the Opposition Benches today rings hollow. When people’s council tax bills land on their doormat later this year, they will know that they have gone up because of incompetence, bad financial management and waste.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) [V]
My constituency is covered by two local authorities: Labour-run Greenwich and Conservative-run Bexley, which I served on as an Opposition councillor. I saw at first hand how the heart and soul of local government was being ripped out by successive Chancellors: green land sold off for unaffordable housing; libraries shut; and support for elderly and disabled residents stripped to the bone. This is happening up and down our country. It is a deliberate, calculated and deeply philosophical rolling back of the state. This attitude is why, in the middle of a pandemic, when councils have been on the frontline in the fight against coronavirus, we have a shameful policy of enforcing a council tax rise on hard-pressed residents while services face further cuts.
Many of my constituents will face a rise of nearly £100 a year, while seeing a Tory-run Bexley sell off land so that it can make hundreds of staff redundant. They will be paying more while their children’s centres are closed, their libraries are closed and their fees and charges skyrocket. They are paying more in Greenwich, too. Over the past 10 years, they have seen the Government reduce funding by £1,500 for every household. Let me repeat that: £1,500 for every household. Next year, Greenwich must cut £20 million and potentially the same amount for 2022 and 2023. That is a long, long way away from the very public promises that the Government were making a year ago at the start of the pandemic. Last Wednesday, I asked the Prime Minister why, when the Secretary of State had promised councils “whatever it takes”, that promise has been broken and why my constituents have to pay for his broken promises? He could not answer me then, so perhaps the Minister will do so when he closes the debate.
It should not be lost on the House that much of the council tax rise relates to social care. We are here today because the Government refuse to take responsibility and properly and sustainably fund care for some of the most vulnerable residents in our communities. There is nobody in the House who does not know the solution to this problem. We need to end the postcode lottery that means that a resident of mine living in Bexley will receive a different level of care to a resident of mine living in Greenwich.
The Government must listen to the voices of hard-pressed families around the country at a time when we desperately need to grow our economy, and when many people are facing pay freezes. An enforced council tax rise will be a disaster.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
Today’s debate is a great opportunity to shine a spotlight on how well Conservative councils are doing in comparison with those controlled by the Labour party. I begin by thanking every member of the team at Darlington Borough Council, including councillors, officers, administrative support and street cleaners. Every one of them has worked hard for the community that I am privileged to represent.
In May 2019, a mere 20 months ago, 28 years of hard Labour in Darlington was brought to an end and the Conservative team, led by Heather Scott, are now delivering for the people in my constituency. Over those 28 years, the Labour-led council raised council taxes year after year while reducing services, choosing to close or put in jeopardy key facilities, and, as has been recently highlighted, failing to recover rents, fees and charges.
The Conservative-led team at Darlington have saved our fantastic 19th century library; commenced restoration of our amazing market hall; restored our market to the market square; reduced car-parking charges, which had previously been the highest in the Tees valley; tackled the scourge of fly-tipping with increased prosecutions; successfully won a bid of £23.3 million from the towns fund; made real progress on resolving our local plan; and saved Springfield park from the road that Labour wanted to bulldoze through it. On top of all that, over the last year, they have overseen the quick and efficient distribution of more than £30 million of support grants to our businesses. This Government have provided billions of extra support to local government to meet the challenges of covid. Darlington, like many local authorities, has received fantastic support, and it gives me a great sense of pride to acknowledge the millions of pounds in extra support for Darlington.
This debate is another attempt by Labour to create headlines and weave a fiction that it is only Labour that cares. The work I have seen by Conservative-led Darlington Borough Council has clearly demonstrated to me that the team there care deeply about the community they serve. They care about the quality of the service that they provide. They care about the money that they have a duty to collect, and they care about the cost to my hard-working constituents.
While Labour plays divisive party politics, this Government are getting on with supporting local authorities, providing £51.2 billion for councils across England—an increase of £2.2 billion on last year—and I thank the Government for making the millions available to Darlington Borough Council. When push comes to shove, this Government have shown themselves to be compassionate in the face of our communities, supportive of our colleagues in local government and robust in challenging the waste and inefficiency of Labour in local government.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Like a lot of people here, I found my route to Westminster via the town hall. I was quite surprised to listen to the oration by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), because I was a councillor in her constituency for eight years. I sat through eight Salford City Council budgets, listened to the same speech year after year from the leader and then the elected Mayor as they decried the Government, and then I took out a copy of the previous year’s Salford Conservative Policy Forum alternative budget, which I penned myself, and ticked off each of the supposedly cruel and unconscionable measures that they rejected previously, having enacted them a year too late to do any good.
Financial mismanagement is the hallmark of Labour authorities. Pointless and often ruinous vanity projects are dressed up with Blair-era names like Invest to Save, and millions of pounds of taxpayers’ hard-earned money is shovelled in to prop them up as it transpires that local authorities probably should not be running, for example, a rugby stadium in Salford or an energy supplier in Nottingham.
In my experience, Labour authorities, far from being forced to increase council tax, have been some of the most enthusiastic proponents of increases, and Greater Manchester is a prime example. In Heywood and Middleton, my constituents will be faced with a council tax rise of almost 5%. The council is hiking rates by 3.99%. Andy Burnham will be adding the maximum £10 allowed for the police precept, and another £14 on top for his general precept. That will put a minimum burden of £58 per household on my constituency. Andy is right that it is the minimum, because he actually wanted more. Members will be aware that Andy got himself into a spot of bother recently as Greater Manchester police were taken into special measures because 80,000 crimes were not recorded. Despite being the police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester and being warned by councillors, officers and MPs, Andy was apparently oblivious to this, but he has magnanimously promised to fix it—although it will cost you.
For Labour Members to come here and complain about council tax rises when their colleagues at local level have tripled the average council tax over the past 20 years so that the average council tax in a Labour authority is £84 higher than the equivalent in a Conservative authority is a heady mix of hubris, chutzpah and old-fashioned brass neck. Once again they come here with a false narrative, intending to stoke up an army of social media trolls, encouraging them to share misleading and sometimes entirely wrong posts and graphics, and to abuse and threaten, while they feign their dismay at these tactics in this Chamber. Instead of riling people up and deliberately frightening the most vulnerable, a serious Opposition would have come here with an alternative and wanting to debate with the Government about the best way to do things—but sadly, not today.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
I have spoken many times about covid and the impact on Hull West and Hessle, which, as highlighted by Amy Norman from the Social Market Foundation, will be hit harder because of the lasting hardships of the past decade. In a nutshell, the long-term impact of austerity will slow our recovery. To be blunt, the last thing that residents in Hull West and Hessle need is an £88 increase in their council tax bill and a £20 cut in universal credit. Hull City Council has faced a decade of cuts under each Conservative Government, and these cuts have hurt services. It was in a more stable situation until the covid pandemic, when its costs escalated again. Hull does not have the ability to raise all the additional funding that it needs from local residents, but it is simply unfair and too heavy a burden for local people to bear.
We must never let this Conservative Government place all the blame for the state of the economy on the pandemic. A decade of irresponsible choices from the Conservatives has left our economy on shaky ground even before covid hit. A quarter of households in the UK went into this pandemic with less than £100 in the bank, 3.6 million people are trapped in insecure work, and the UK is one of the most unequal countries in Europe. The Government must stick to their promise to do whatever is necessary to support councils’ funding. Instead of a Conservative Government penny-pinching from struggling families while at the same time wasting taxpayers’ money on failed PPE and questionable Government contracts with those with links to the party, we need a concrete plan for post-pandemic recovery, with a focus on green energy jobs and building on the ideas and talents that we have right here. Earlier today, I heard the news that Debenhams is closing its stores. That will hit Hull’s retail sector hard. I hope that when the Minister responds, he can give an answer on what he is going to do about our high streets.
In the longer term, there are two big projects that Government could get behind to help to generate jobs and speed our recovery from covid. Investing in the Hull lagoon project would create about 14,000 jobs. Our growth in the city is challenged by flood risk, and restricted by transport connectivity and a shortage of key development land. This home-grown solution has been driven by local businesspeople and has my full support. It will be bold and transformative, and I urge the Government to take it seriously. The Government could also approve the bid of Zero Carbon Humber, which would not only help to protect the environment, but create 50,000 jobs.
Together, such projects could fulfil Hull and East Riding’s potential to be the green capital of the UK. Here, in Hull West and Hessle, there is talent, ambition and drive, but that could be snuffed out if the Government continue to pursue economic policies that harm the poorest hard-working families. I urge them to think past just the needs of what they are going to do next week and instead think about how they can use the power of Government to follow Labour’s plan to invest long-term in green energy jobs.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) [V]
I put on the record my thanks for Connected Communities, a best-practice innovation in my local authority which promotes getting around to meet many of those affected by covid and—a double whammy—by the impact of Brexit on my community. They go around to do assessments, assisting many older and disabled people, and people who have fallen on hard times because of coronavirus and losing their jobs.
I also put on the record my concern about the tone of the introductory speech by the Minister, who seemed to be attacking the sector. In actual fact, we need to be praising the sector and building it up; instead, he used it as an opportunity to attack councils. I think this is a time for us all to pull together.
In my brief remarks, I want to highlight two broken promises of the Government. The first is failing to address the social care crisis—for many years, since 2010 when the Tories were first elected, they have promised to sort out social care, promising to put disabled people and older folk first. However, we still do not have a proper funding solution for social care. My message is: get on with it.
The second broken promise is the promise to do “whatever is necessary” for local government. I am extremely concerned about the waste of £1,000 a day on consultants on the failed test, trace and isolate system; that was spent instead of funding local government’s shoe leather, to go around helping people to understand and to educate them about the importance of self-isolation. That is the role of local government but, instead, it was bypassed for an expensive test, trace and isolate system, with consultants—£1,000 a day, what a waste—to tell the Government what to do. At a much more value-for-money price, local government could have done a much better job.
Finally, on the question of council tax, we all know it is a regressive tax, which tends to hurt working families much more disproportionately than others. It falls heavily on renters, who will probably never be able to get on to the housing ladder in my constituency. Year after year, they have to pay more and more council tax, while landlords who own the properties do not pay a penny. We know that forcing councils to raise council tax in this way this spring will be terrible for those affected by coronavirus. The Government promised to do whatever was necessary and, instead, time after time we see local government being attacked. After the worst recession of any major economy and with the virus still not under control, now is not the time to put households under more pressure. I say to the Government and the Minister: rethink this policy.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) [V]
Today’s debate on council tax rises is an excellent opportunity to set the record straight and to make it clear to the British people that Labour’s position on this topic, as on so many others, opens it up to allegations of hypocrisy.
It is undeniable that most Labour-controlled councils spend money recklessly and with little concern for the consequences. Appreciate how Labour-controlled Wakefield Council has, for decades, overseen the city’s deterioration. In 2008, the council pushed through plans for a £3 million market hall, against the wishes of local residents and the city’s market traders. The scheme has caused the city real hurt and lost an average of £190,000 per year. Although vast, however, that does not even cover the former chief executive’s £200,000 a year pay.
The council chooses to pay its bigwigs eye-watering sums, and yet it fails to deliver vital services. When it snowed last week, our roads were left unsafe for frontline workers to commute or the vulnerable to receive their vaccines. The council gritters were nowhere to be seen.
This sad story of inefficient and unresponsive local government is repeated in virtually every Labour-run administration. Nottingham city councillors gave themselves an above-inflation pay rise, while ruining council finances through schemes such as Robin Hood Energy. The Mayor of London severely mismanages taxpayers’ money, spending an extra £9 million on staffing costs—all to help boost his image—without helping those most in need. Labour’s record in local government is scandalous. The basic problem is that Labour continues to mismanage resources, and its irresponsible solution is to demand even more money, not to improve systems and create efficiencies. Where mismanagement of finances and waste are found, corrections must be made.
The Conservative Government have taken unprecedented action to ensure that councils can provide vital services during the pandemic. Councils have received £7.2 billion in extra funding, including £4.6 billion in un-ring-fenced grants to cover additional costs.
It is clear that Labour cannot be trusted to spend public money wisely. Labour relies on the taxpayer to always pay the cost of its failure. It is the Conservatives who have overseen a reduction in council tax in England in real terms. Labour managers saw this debate as an opportunity to claim the moral high ground, but Britain need only look at Labour’s track record to recognise that this debate is yet another example of its chronic mismanagement.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) [V]
The Government promised to do whatever was necessary to support councils during the pandemic. Why, then, are they planning to force a rise in council tax, not only breaking their promise, but forcing hard-working people to pay for their broken promises?
Families are already under huge financial pressures as a result of the fallout from covid. Our councils are coming off the back of austerity and have taken the brunt of Tory cuts over the last decade. Central Government cuts have led to council spending power and core funding becoming dependent on income from council tax. Constituencies such as mine have seen around a 33% rise in council tax since the Tories came into power. For some, a 5% council tax rise will add around £100 to their annual bill.
As a councillor for 10 years, I know that one of the biggest pressures on local government spending is adult social care, with councils and the vulnerable people they care for paying the price of the Government’s failure to bring forward their long-promised plan to tackle the social care crisis. We should have seen social care packages and a social care funding settlement, but instead the Prime Minister’s failure to bring forward a plan is putting huge pressure on council budgets and is failing some of the most vulnerable in our society. That is truly sickening when we look at the money that has been wasted during the pandemic on failed test and trace and on procurement from private firms through blatant cronyism.
Such irresponsible choices are nothing new from Conservative Governments. Even before covid, our economy was on shaky ground, with a quarter of UK households going into the crisis with less than £100 in the bank, and 3.6 million people trapped in insecure work. Throughout this crisis, the Chancellor has created problem after problem time and time again. Instead of following the science, he set up a false choice between the economy and public health. That has cost jobs and livelihoods and has left us with the worst recession of any major economy.
Raising council tax now, alongside a cut to universal credit and a pay freeze for key workers, will leave families in the north-east and across the country with less money in their pockets. That is a slap in the face to those who have sacrificed so much during this crisis, and it will hit the poorest hardest. The Government must now live up to their promises. They must scrap this forced council tax rise and stand by their pledge to do whatever is necessary by fully funding our local authorities and protecting our vital services.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) [V]
The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), started the debate by saying that the Government were forcing council tax rises and that Government failure has led to the economic challenge we face. I will start by saying simply that neither of those statements is true. Councils make their own decisions on council tax, of course, and the Conservatives introduced a cap on rises in 2011, which his party opposed in the LGA. Unless he is accusing the Government of plotting in the wet markets of Wuhan, clearly blaming them for covid, he is well wide of the mark.
As we have heard already, it is pretty rich for Labour to raise council tax as an issue when we know that Labour councils charge £84 a year more, when the Mayor of London wants a 10% tax rise and when a candidate in the West Midlands wants to whack £34 million on the bill for residents. There is no doubt that covid has come at significant cost to local authorities, and that is why more than £10 billion has gone into the coffers, plus the most generous local government settlement in a decade. That is before we mention schemes such as Everyone In, which supported people to get off the streets in the first lockdown, and the winter support grant, which is helping the most vulnerable people through the challenges of covid this winter.
Nowhere is the contrast more stark than in Nottinghamshire. We have heard a lot about it in the debate. In the Conservative-run county, the Conservative group has put residents in a strong financial position. Pre-covid, a lot of hard work went into rebuilding the council after years of Labour administration, and we have therefore been in a strong position to manage the pandemic and offer out services such as the support hub and additional help for residents while still being able to set a balanced budget for next year that protects services. Meanwhile, as we have heard, Nottingham City Council, Labour fiefdom that it is, blew £38 million on Robin Hood Energy, made 230 redundancies—apparently by Skype—and then its members awarded themselves above-inflation pay rises, despite destroying the council’s finances. The council is struggling to put together a budget for next year and is calling the administrators in, and it will be residents in Nottingham city who will be asked to pay for it when the cash was splashed on ideological pet projects. Now it is all gone, and residents will pay the price for Labour’s incompetence. Meanwhile, Mansfield District Council persists with an expensive executive mayoral system that adds costs, and Ashfield District Council has created five new cabinet roles at £90,000 a year to give themselves jobs while raising council tax for residents. It is not good enough.
The Secretary of State is quite right to thank hard-working frontline officers for their work during this incredibly stressful and emotional time, often not helped by the politicians, frankly. I am pleased to be able to tell my residents in Mansfield that at least the Conservative-led county council is in a strong financial position and will be able to put forward a balanced budget for the year ahead and to continue to deliver good local services despite the ongoing challenges we face.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]
Even before the covid-19 pandemic, millions were struggling to pay their council tax and other essential bills. Research in 2019 showed that 1.6 million people have fallen behind on council tax payments, and the pandemic has only worsened the situation. The financial pressures have put a spotlight on how local government has been forced to rely more and more on increases in council tax over recent years, despite it being a regressive tax that squeezes those least able to afford it. The staggering level of cuts in central Government funding to local authorities since 2010, as Conservative Governments have tried to put the blame for their choices on councils, combined with the failure to deal with the crisis in adult social care as our population ages, has left councils with no choice but to increase council tax and the social precept every year if they want to continue to provide essential child, adult and elderly social care services.
Ten years ago, about 40% of local government revenue came from council tax. Today, it is more than 60%. Let us be clear what that means. Conservative Governments have overseen a shift to a far more aggressive way of paying for local government, squeezing struggling families more and more and putting the pressure on communities that can bear it least, while failing to address the real financial challenges that local authorities face. Those challenges are huge. Following the latest local government financial settlement, revenue spending will be about 20% to 25% below what it was in 2010. Over the last 10 years, Newcastle City Council has had to make savings of £305 million, more than £2,000 per household, to balance its budget. Coronavirus has cost councils across the country more than £11 billion in 2020 alone.
We are all eager to get back to the way things were before last March, but as Unison’s No Going Back to Normal campaign has highlighted, there can be no going back to the pre-covid status quo. That normal, with deep cuts to local services that support children, the elderly, the disabled, people with mental health conditions and many more, has made the human impact of the pandemic so much worse.
This is not just about local government arguing for what was promised. It is about a system that is quite obviously broken and unsustainable, and has been for some time, which is putting far too much pressure on those who can least afford to pay, and a Government who prefer to pass the buck to local authorities in the hope that voters blame them, instead of tackling the real issues and ensuring sustainable, life-changing local services can be provided. Short-term sticking plasters are not going to solve the vital issues created by years of neglect, and we need to see urgent action and serious engagement on those real solutions now.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) [V]
Council tax has always been a political battlefield, and it is right that it is debated, especially as we will all have our role to play at some point in the economic recovery, and it will define every single one of us—not just as individuals, but as a nation—as to how well we do this and how quickly.
What I like about these debates is that they provide the opportunity to address the spurious political straplines that those on the Opposition Benches peddle, but what I do not like about these debates is the negative impact these very spurious straplines have on those who have seen their economic world order change overnight due to the pandemic. We should never seek to politicise and undermine those who are economically vulnerable. Never more so than today, we must protect and shield: it is not the time for political divisiveness. People want the facts and they need the truth. These are people’s lives, after all. This pandemic has wreaked havoc on our economy and people need certainty, and they need reassurance. Managing money can feel like walking a tightrope at the best of times, let alone when a pandemic rips through the heart of someone’s own personal economy.
The spurious strapline I refer to is this one:
“Labour…demanding that the Government reverse its plans to force councils to raise council tax”—
shameless misrepresentation, sheer political opportunism. Thankfully, these are the real and reassuring headlines: a £670 million hardship fund to enable local authorities to continue reducing council tax bills for those least able to pay—fact; under the Conservatives, council tax in England is lower in real terms—fact; and, yes, there may be a rise in council tax, but this is at the discretion of the local authority, which also has the flexibility to defer this increase for a year—fact. It is also somewhat surprising that we are having this debate, as many Labour-run councils across the country are in fact planning to increase council tax. The Labour mayoral candidate for the West Midlands has already said that he wants to raise council tax by £34 million to pay for young people to get free transport—fact.
Those most vulnerable do not need or deserve the shameless political opportunism that these Opposition debates represent. Everyone knows that this pandemic has affected our lives in many ways, and everyone knows that they will have their part to play in actually repairing the economy. What people want is the truth, not spurious headlines that serve no purpose but to destabilise and undermine those most vulnerable at the time of their greatest need.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) [V]
This Government, like their predecessor and their predecessor, are pursuing a policy that promotes an ever-widening gap between the haves and have-nots. The opening remarks of the Secretary of State suggest he is clueless about how hard this is hurting hard-pressed households across the country. Most shameful of all is the Government’s disingenuous claim to level up our country and our society. This is laid bare in their approach to local government finance, where they have brazenly encouraged this widening of wealth between our local authorities—between shire and city, and north and south. Instead, they have presided over an acceleration of inequality across this country, while families have to stump up more money for less locally.
Fortunately, the public are starting to see this for the charade it is. After years of inflation-busting council tax increases in effect forced on authorities by this Conservative Government, the public see next to nothing in return: holes in the roads, holes in their arguments. Across England, we have seen the average band D council tax increase dramatically, way ahead of inflation. In 2015-16, this was £1,500, and it is expected now to rise to almost £2,000 in this next financial year. This represents an eye-watering 29% increase in cash terms on its level in 2015-16.
Residents in Warwick and Leamington are facing a further increase of £94 on average this coming financial year, despite next to no increase in wages and inflation at between 0.5% to 0.7%. Warwickshire County Council has lost half a billion in funding since 2013. Among all the services it has cut or closed, let me just mention the virtual closure of youth services, which has clearly contributed to knife crime rocketing. We now have the prospect of yet another rise in the police levy from the police and crime commissioner. It is another 6%—12 times the inflation rate—on local taxes, while cutting 87 staff from the investigations and domestic abuse teams. That is 87 dedicated and experienced police staff being made redundant.
This is all against a backdrop of the Government handing out cash to their mates, with £21 billion for a failed test and trace scheme that sees call operators staying at home and making a couple of calls a day. The Government are starving local public health of money, although local public health would do it better for less. They are shovelling money to other mates setting up middlemen businesses to import personal protective equipment that never arrives—merely hundreds of millions of pounds in their case.
Let me give the Government one desperate plea from local government: charge a fair fee for planning. It is ridiculous that a site employing 2,000 people here for the new megalab in Leamington is, in effect, being subsidised by Warwick District Council. I also make a plea to provide some long-term certainty. How many times have we heard the Government say they will do whatever it takes, only to take whatever they like from what they promised local government? On 16 March, the Secretary of State told 300 council leaders they would do whatever necessary to support them. We are seeing an ever-widening gap in our society, and another inflation-busting council tax is just one too many for them.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) [V]
This is a Government who are supporting councils with £10 billion of support, including more than £2 million to Gedling Borough Council here in Nottinghamshire, plus more to help ease financial burdens. This Government’s support for local councils has been unprecedented and generous and helped share the burden they face.
Our councils are so often on the frontline when it comes to delivering services. That is especially so in this pandemic, where they have done so much. I thank the staff at Nottinghamshire County Council and Gedling Borough Council for all the work they have done over the past year. From social care to keeping waste collections going, to making food packages at the Richard Herrod Centre in Carlton, council staff have kept the show on the road in difficult circumstances.
More generally, councils need to be well-run, and from where I am speaking, there is a tale of two councils. Conservative-led Nottinghamshire has been described by an LGA peer review as
“an effective council delivering good quality citizen-focused services to its residents.”
The report stated:
“There is financial stability in the organisation and the Council has a proven track record of delivering savings while maintaining front-line services over a long period of time—this is impressive.”
The council has halved the budget gap that it inherited from the previous Labour administration and kept discretionary services such as libraries open. It is set to make a balanced budget next year.
That is all in contrast with Labour-run Nottingham City Council, which we have already heard much about today, and for good reason. It is a council that is selling off assets to try to balance the budget, a council that organised a Christmas market that closed after one day and, infamously, a council that set up the now-failed Robin Hood Energy.
Robin Hood Energy had customers from far and wide—I believe the former Labour leader, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), was the most high-profile. While he and fellow Islingtonians might have benefited from cheaper energy prices, the collapse of the company will be felt by the working-class taxpayers of the Meadows, Sneinton and St Ann’s in the city, as Nottingham City Council seeks to make up for the tens of millions of pounds it has lost. For the residents of Nottinghamshire, the choice could not be more stark. I trust that in May the good folk of Nottinghamshire will choose wisely.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) [V]
When the pandemic first hit, the Government brought back an old phrase. “We are all in it together”, they said, but that is not how it has turned out. A report published today by Oxfam shows that the 10 richest individuals in the world have seen their wealth rise by more than £400 billion since March. Friends and donors of the Conservatives have been handed fortunes in deeply questionable covid contracts. Private companies have seen it as an opportunity to open up the NHS to further privatisation. But the vast majority of the public? More than 750,000 jobs lost and 6 million families now on universal credit. In poorer, working-class communities, people are at twice the risk of dying from covid compared with those in the richest. BAME communities are at between 10% and 50% higher risk of dying. Just like when the greed of bankers caused the financial crisis and the working class paid with a decade of austerity, here again, the working class are being hit the hardest by a crisis not of their making.
That is the background to the Government’s plans, forcing councils to raise council tax to help plug the gap of the £15 billion cut from central Government funds in the last decade. It is a move that can mean a rise of nearly £100 on average for band D households, breaking the Government’s promise to
“do whatever is necessary to support councils”.
It does not stop there. In addition to the Government’s plans to cut universal credit by £1,000 a year, they plan to rip up workers’ rights, endangering everything from holiday pay entitlement to the 48-hour working week. They have already cut corners on free school meals and forced a cruel public sector pay freeze on key workers, even as their labour is what is getting us through this crisis.
Before the pandemic hit, Britain was rigged: rigged in the interests of the rich and the powerful by a Tory party funded by the rich and the powerful. That rigged society has meant that this pandemic has hit much harder than it needed to: workers who cannot afford to self-isolate, families who are crammed into overcrowded housing, services privatised and run for profit, not public health, and now the highest death toll in Europe, the worst death rate in the world and the deepest recession of any major economy. There should be no going back to that. So, far from increasing council tax for ordinary people or freezing pay for key workers, we should instead crack down on the £90 billion dodged in tax every year, making the super-rich and big businesses pay their fair share, and giving key workers the pay rise they deserve, councils the funding they need and our public services the resources to serve us all.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) [V]
I was once a member of Penwith District Council, a council renowned for keeping council tax low and the quality of service delivery high. That came to an end with Labour’s local government reorganisation programme, forcing Cornwall Council on the good people of the Duchy. Since then, we have seen several years of council tax rises and several examples of wasteful spending, some of which was set out by my friend and colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). In fact, when the Conservative-run administration froze council tax for several years, Labour scoffed at us, suggesting that a rise equalled just four tins of baked beans. Many hundreds of tins of baked beans later, council tax presents a grave drain on working families and what we know as the just-about-managing. My sympathy is with those families, not the party political stunt of an Opposition day motion that we are now used to. I will always favour low taxes and good value for money. The example for Cornwall and of Cornwall is that this is only the case under a Conservative-run council.
As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), the Government ran a consultation on council tax and second homes. The consultation was triggered by a debate I secured to seek to address the shortage of housing in tourist areas such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. Could the Government please look at this issue? This debate relates to an increase in council tax to fund public services. I believe in tax simplification and a fair tax system for all. One way to address the issue would be to apply council tax to all properties built for residential purposes. That would ensure our police, and our town and parish councils receive the money they should receive and need. Sharing the costs of local public services fairly is something the Conservatives believe in and this is an opportunity to address that further. Would the Minister therefore please look at what is needed to ensure that properties built for residential purposes pay their fair share of council tax in areas such as mine around the country where tourism is a key part of the local economy?
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Most council tax payers think that their council tax pays for all council services, but that is not the case; it is made up of council tax, central Government grant and business rates. The central Government grant has been cut by 56% in the last 10 years, in a deliberate policy of this Government to move funding away from central Government grant and on to local council tax payers. In County Durham, for example, the council’s budget has been cut by 40%, which is £232 million in central grant. That has hit northern councils harder, because they relied heavily on the central Government grant for a proportion of their income.
It is a double whammy, because the Government are now pushing this on to council tax. In County Durham, 50% of properties are in band A. Surrey, for example, has larger numbers of council tax payers in band H. A 1% increase in Durham raises very little compared with what it raises in Surrey, so northern councils are being penalised through this.
We have heard all the nonsense this afternoon about local government needing to be more efficient. Councils are making efficiencies, but it is not possible to cut 40% of a council’s budget without services being affected. Some 60% of Durham County Council’s budget is spent on social care and looked-after children. The idea portrayed that every council is the same is nonsense, in terms of the demand for social care and care for looked-after children.
The Conservative Government and Government Members then blame councils for putting up parking charges and everything else. The councils have to, because frankly, that is the only way they are going to get their income. They criticise councils for speculative property developments. I would criticise them as well, because the majority of them are by Conservative councils in the south-east of England, and that cannot be right.
The Government’s campaign slogan is about levelling up the north. Well, I am sorry, but this Government and their predecessor have done exactly the opposite for the last 10 years. Pushing the increase in local government funding on to local council tax payers is not about levelling up. It will mean that people pay more in the north than they do in the south. If that is this Government’s idea of levelling up, it is not what is being portrayed by many Government Members. This is a regressive tax that will hit hard-working families in areas such as mine in North Durham.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) [V]
I have been a councillor in my constituency for the last nine years. Much like my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), I have sat through repeated budgets from a Labour-controlled council, and they have never needed any encouragement at all to increase council tax. Year after year in Bury, we have council tax increases. What is the reason for that? Clearly, it has not been pandemics or any other reason—it is down to sheer incompetence.
I have listened in amazement to some of the contributions from Labour Members. The plain fact of the matter is that the north of England has been blighted by a decades- long record of incompetence from Labour councillors, and that incompetence has been palmed off on to the poor taxpayer with continued tax rises. To hear some of the stories today is somewhat nauseating when my constituents have suffered as a result of continued incompetence from Labour authorities. One of the things that we never hear from Labour politicians is, what money do councils need? What do they want to deliver? What do they want local residents to see? In my area, it is very difficult to see what my Labour authority has changed or what innovative projects have been put in place, because none have. We have suffered through incompetence, and it is no good Opposition Members simply using tired old slogans and politics by soundbite, with no record in local government upon which to base any of these claims.
Over the last financial year, this Government have supported Bury Council with £107 million of extra spending, with further business support on top of that. That is an unprecedented level of support for my local authority. But we must hold local authorities to account. Democracy is both a national and local concept. Labour politicians would seek to hide the incompetence of Labour councils and mayoralties in the north of England by speaking in generalities about matters that are not affecting people’s lives.
I am proud of this Government; they have found the money to support councils through this pandemic period, and continue to find the money to support councils to deliver the services that are needed. Just once, I hope that the Labour party comes forward with proposals that would have an actual impact on constituents such as mine in Bury North, rather than just talking in generalities and soundbites, and setting up a social media storm that I am sure will hit all Conservative MPs the moment that this debate finishes.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) [V]
Following on from the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly), I will talk about practicalities.
The Government are forcing councils to increase council tax while simultaneously forcing them to make cuts. They are passing on the responsibility of funding the cost of covid to our local councils, and breaking the promise made to them at the start of the pandemic that they could spend “whatever it takes.” In the next few weeks, councillors in Hounslow and across the country are having to make incredibly hard decisions, on top of the many years of cuts that they have already had to make. In Hounslow, those cuts have meant virtually closing all youth services, and cutting social care when the need for care is growing. These are decisions that no councillor was elected to make, but which are forced on my council, in my constituency, thanks to a roughly 80% reduction over 10 years to the central Government grant, which once made up half of Hounslow’s income.
Even before covid, Hounslow councillors were going have to find £6 million of savings for this coming year, and £12 million for the next. They were—and still are— having to consider further cutting social care provision, as well as so-called back-office roles, which actually have an impact on the frontline, because these are the people who ensure that services change as conditions change; they are usually central to ensuring that the council is efficient, which is something that all taxpayers expect. On top of this, Hounslow has had to fund £20 million of additional spend on covid costs, as well as loss of business rates and other income.
Up to one in three families in Hounslow includes someone working at Heathrow, so job losses have had a massive impact and family incomes have been devastated. The Government’s covid grants have hardly touched the sides of the costs of responding to the community needs caused by covid. Those costs include the community hub to identify and support those who are isolated and vulnerable in order to ensure that they have food, medicines and other support. Hounslow has provided financial support to those who have lost income and, because there has been a devastating loss of income, the council has developed a “cornerstones of recovery” plan, which supports people into alternative work, helps with establishing small businesses and provides community support. But there are also many indirect costs.
Covid will leave a legacy in terms of poverty, employment, homelessness, the education gap and increased demand in social care, which will last for many years to come. The Government should work in partnership with councils and fully support the costs that they have incurred. Instead of hitting families with a triple hammer blow of council tax hikes, pay freezes, and cuts to universal credit and council services, Labour would act to secure our economy, protect our NHS and rebuild our country.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) [V]
I pay tribute to everyone who has taken part in today’s debate. There have been excellent contributions from Labour Members, who understand the devasting impact of broken promises from this Government on the communities they serve.
It is worth repeating that in March the Local Government Secretary told local leaders that the Government would do “whatever it takes” to support councils during this pandemic. Come May, he broke that promise and said that councils would not be fully reimbursed. We have heard of the huge package that the Government have put into local councils. What the Government fail to mention is the cross-party letters that the Secretary of State has received from leaders telling him that that is not enough and that he should honour his promise. Government Members talk about business support, but not the businesses they fail to support; they talk about the discretionary support for those who have to self-isolate, but not about the thousands they did not support.
As we have heard today, the Government want to present their council tax hike as a choice, but it is not. We do not have to be economists to realise that this is the wrong time to force councils to raise council tax and ask hard-pressed families to pay for Government failures. The Secretary of State knows full well that his broken promise to do whatever is necessary to support councils will force local leaders to raise council tax to protect vital services. Councils of all political stripes across the country will raise council tax to keep services running and get their communities through this pandemic. They are being punished for this Government’s broken promises—punished for doing right by their communities and punished for Government failures.
Local authorities are still reeling from the £15 billion of cuts over the last decade. We have heard a lot of Tory Members blame Labour councils for raising council tax. As we have heard from many Labour Members, council budgets have been cut by over 50% in the last decade. Councils will have no choice, but the Government had a choice—they had a choice, and they took the decision to cut council budgets. That left councils less financially resilient going into this pandemic, precisely because it left them more reliant on business rates and council tax. As we know, those revenues vanished during lockdown. The Secretary of State ought to have known that before he made a promise to compensate councils—a promise he has continually failed to keep.
It need not have been this way. This is a Conservative Government who have wasted tens of billions of pounds of public money on a test and trace system that does not work—a Conservative Government who handed out crony contracts to their friends for PPE that did not work. It will be families picking up the tab for those broken promises and stuck with a regressive tax rise through the back door at the worst possible time.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) told us, the Government’s council tax hike will increase regional inequality and do precisely the opposite of uniting and levelling up our country. The Conservative Government are dividing communities when they should be bringing communities together. This rise will hit families in all areas, but it will hit the north-west and the north-east particularly hard. A 5% increase in Surrey raises £38 million, while a 5% increase in Blackburn raises only £2.8 million. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) and for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for raising that point—something that was missed by the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly). In marked contrast, we heard contributions from lots of new Conservative Members from those regions, including the hon. Member, who sought to defend the hike. I am sure their constituents will demand to know why they are prepared to defend and vote for these rises.
Happily, though, there is still time for those Members to do what is right and oppose these hikes, just as there is still time for the Government to think again, scrap the planned rise and stand by their pledge to stand behind councils. A tax rise now will see families up and down the country worrying about paying the bills and keeping food on the table. Businesses will worry about how they will keep their doors open with fewer customers. Councils will worry about protecting their services. I urge the Government to change course now so we can secure our economy, protect our NHS and begin to rebuild our country.
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
I appreciate that this has been a contentious debate, but may I start by expressing my huge appreciation for the incredible work that councils across the country have been doing to help lead the response to the pandemic? They have been at the frontline of the response in areas such as social care, testing and ensuring public safety, and they have continued to do an outstanding job in delivering the day-to-day services that we all rely on so much, including waste collection, highways maintenance, park management and so much more. May I also join my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) in praising parish and town councils, which have worked so hard over the course of this year to deliver their services?
Unfortunately, what we have heard today is an Opposition who completely misunderstand some of the basic rules of local government finance. The premise of their argument seems to be that the Government are somehow forcing councils to increase council tax by failing to provide adequate support in response to the pandemic. However, if we step back and look at the basic facts, we will see that nothing could be further from the truth.
If Members look at councils’ self-reported figures to our Department, which project that cost pressures for covid total £6.9 billion, and compare that with the £8 billion that we have already provided to councils since March, they will see that we have provided them with £1 billion more than they are spending in response to this pandemic. On top of that, we have provided a business rates holiday worth about £10 billion to retail, hospitality and leisure industries. We have also given councils over £17 billion to provide grants to thousands of businesses across the country, and we have seen some incredible work from councils in getting those grants directly to affected businesses. We have also introduced a sales, fees and charges scheme, supported leisure centres and supported councils with local tax losses. Councils will continue to receive funding through the contain outbreak management fund, to tackle the spread of the virus. That is worth over £225 million a month. We are backing local government all the way with the necessary funding now and into the future.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is welcome that today Hyndburn Borough Council received an extra £492,000 to help with the community response? Does he also agree that it is important that our residents get the bang for their buck and that the basics get done, such as streets being cleaned, bins emptied and empty buildings on our high streets restored to their former glory?
Luke Hall
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that councils should be delivering efficient services with the settlement that they have received from this Government.
If we look at the provisional settlement that the Secretary of State published on 17 December, we see a 4.5% cash-terms increase in core spending power—a real-terms increase for the next financial year. We have also committed at least £3 billion of additional help to councils for next year. That includes the extension of the sales, fees and charges guarantee scheme, which we know has been a lifeline to so many councils during this pandemic. Our commitment to support councils is stronger than ever, and we will ensure that they have the resources they need to deliver first-class public services.
May I thank Members from both sides of the House for their contributions to this debate? I appreciate that it has been hotly contested and contentions, but some important points have been raised. I was surprised, however, to see numerous Opposition Members stand up and say how much they disagreed with the Government’s proposal, given that so many of their councils have not even bothered to respond to our consultation. The hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) said how much she and her council disagreed with it, but Labour-run Newham Council has not responded to our consultation on council tax. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) told us how strongly he and his council feel about this issue, but it has not responded to our consultation, either. Perhaps that is because it welcomes fully the 3.9% increase in core spending power that it will receive next year. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) told us how much he and his local Lib Dem council did not support it, but it has also not bothered to respond to the consultation. It is typical of a Lib Dem administration that it stands up, shouts from the sidelines and fails to do the necessary work.
Mr Kevan Jones
It might be because the Government completely ignore them. Durham County Council has lost 40% of its budget—£232 million—in the past 10 years. Under the proposed council tax rises, its limited council tax base will limit what it can raise compared with southern councils. How can that be right, in terms of moving money from the north to the south?
Luke Hall
I do not see how it is right for the right hon. Gentleman’s local council to spend millions of pounds on doing up an office building and installing a roof terrace during the middle of the covid pandemic. I shall come to his point about council tax redistribution in a moment.
The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) talked about Liverpool City Council being forced to raise council tax. That is not the case; councils have a choice. Liverpool has been campaigning to have a higher council tax—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We are not taking bogus points of order right now, because it is not fair for people who are not here in the Chamber. If the hon. Gentleman has a real point of order, I will listen to him.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. This is a debate; there are, therefore, differing points of view on either side of the House—[Interruption.] Do not shout at me in the Chair.
Luke Hall
The Opposition motion calls on the Government to drop
“plans to force local councils to increase council tax”—
another complete misunderstanding of the system of local government finance. Decisions on council tax levels are, of course, for local councils themselves. We are allowing councils the flexibility to raise council tax up to the ceiling that we have set, with a 2% council tax referendum limit—a ceiling that many Labour councils have been asking us to raise—and an additional 3% for adult social care responsibilities.
We are also giving councils the flexibility to defer rises in the adult social care precept for next year, if that is what councils locally decide and if local circumstances require that. Vitally, we are also providing councils with £670 million of new funding to enable them to continue to reduce council tax bills next year for those least able to pay—a point that was made so well by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho).
We on the Government side of the House trust councils to make the right decisions on council tax; the Labour party cannot even persuade its own councils, which have been writing to us to ask for greater flexibility so that they can raise council tax even more. The Labour party cannot even persuade the Labour group on the LGA, which would see the cap on council tax rises scrapped altogether, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) pointed out.
Several Members made points about the Government’s record on council tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) put it very well: under the Labour Government, council tax doubled, it has trebled in Wales and the Labour Mayor of London wants to raise it by 10%, whereas under the Conservatives it has fallen in real terms since 2010. We have introduced council tax referendums, which put an end to the crude universal capping system of the past; we put in place voluntary council tax freeze schemes for five years, which helped to deliver the lowest average increases across England since council tax was introduced; we have introduced local council tax support schemes, requiring councils to set up schemes to help those least able to pay; and we have given councils flexibility over discounts and exemptions and helped them to better manage local housing markets through the introduction of the empty homes premium.
A number of Members raised the issue of social care and were absolutely right to do so. We are funding councils for social care into the future, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South pointed out. The provisional local government finance settlement for next year will provide councils with more than £1 billion of additional funding for social care next year, including £300 million of new grant funding. That is in addition to the £790 million that can be raised through the adult social care precept, if councils decide to. That is, of course, on top of the £1 billion social care grant announced last year, which is being maintained in line with our manifesto commitment.
I was surprised to hear the hon. Members for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne)—the former shadow Secretary of State, for whom I have huge respect—all talk about the social care precept raising money in the wrong places. They obviously have not studied the detail of the settlement, which says clearly that we have put aside £240 million to equalise the differences in adult social care precepts. I am afraid they just have not read the detail of the settlement. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) pointed out the pressures on household budgets, which are exactly why we have introduced the £670 million scheme.
The Opposition misunderstand and misunderstood the local government finance system. They cannot grasp the fact that it allocated over £1 billion more to local government than councils are spending in response to the pandemic. We take no lectures from a party that doubled council tax when in office and have trebled it in Wales. We are ensuring that councils have the resources they need to come out of this pandemic stronger, and that is why we are supporting councils with a £2.2 billion rise in core spending power and £1.5 billion of extra support to help with covid costs.
We are giving councils the flexibility to defer any increases next year if they believe it is right for their community. We are protecting residents from the sort of outrageous tax hikes that were so commonplace under the last Labour Government. Councils have done an incredible job of responding throughout the pandemic, and we are standing behind them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I should point out that in current circumstances, when hardly anyone is here, there is no question of my being able to decide this Division on the voices, as there are so few representative voices present. Therefore, I call a Division.
Question put.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will now suspend the House for three minutes in order that the necessary arrangements can be made for the next item of business.
Employment Rights: Government Plans
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 263 / Noes: 0 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I advise the House that Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that all existing employment rights and protections must be maintained, including the 48-hour working week, rest breaks at work and inclusion of overtime pay when calculating some holiday pay entitlements, and calls on the Government to set out to Parliament by the end of January 2021 a timetable to introduce legislation to end fire and re-hire tactics.
May I start by welcoming the Secretary of State to his place and wishing him every success in his new role? I am sure that I speak for the whole House in paying a heartfelt tribute to the workers of our country—the women and men who have battled so hard throughout this pandemic, persevering in the most difficult environment that any of us, who have not suffered the horrors of war, have ever known. I am talking about those keyworkers: our nurses, our doctors, health and care workers, shop workers, cleaners, transport workers and, indeed, everybody who has worked so selflessly and bravely battled to maintain services throughout our country. Many of them have had to go to work with real concerns about their own safety and that of their families. Sadly, too many have worked in unsafe conditions because of the Government’s failure to enforce workplace health and safety standards or to provide the financial support needed for people to self-isolate. Tragically, so many workers have lost their lives, including a member of our own House of Commons family, namely Godfrey Cameron, and we grieve with, and for, all who love them. Workers are facing enormous stresses and pressures, and many are having to deal with major mental health challenges. It is with all those workers in mind that Her Majesty’s Opposition bring forward this motion today.
This pandemic has exposed the many deficiencies in workers’ rights and protections, and now there is a real yearning that, when we emerge from this crisis, a better deal for working people is not only possible, but essential. Yes, the economic position is tough, but people came back from a devastating war in 1945 determined to forge a better society for their families to prosper in. Such a moment, as President Biden said, of renewal and resolve is right now. At no time in living memory has it been clearer that the safety and security of working people is inextricably linked with public health and the economy.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that some employers, such as British Airways and British Gas, have used the covid situation to exploit workers and to try to change their terms and conditions in this very difficult environment?
Andy McDonald
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend in that respect and I will come on to deal with many of those issues later on in my speech.
Against this backdrop, it is shocking that the Government would even consider embarking on a review to rip up the hard-won rights of working people. As revealed in the Financial Times, the Government have drawn up plans to end the 48-hour working week, weaken rules around rest breaks and exclude overtime when calculating holiday and pay entitlement. If the Government have their way, these changes would have a devastating impact on working people. Quite simply, it will mean longer hours, lower wages and less safe work.
The 48-hour working week limit is a vital protection of work-life balance. It is also a crucial health and safety protection, without which the physical and mental wellbeing of workers and the general public is at risk. But let us not beat around the bush: working longer hours leads to more deaths and more serious injuries. Nobody wants their loved ones cared for by our fantastic, but exhausted and overworked, nurses or ambulance staff, or for buses and trains to be operated by tired-out drivers. After the sacrifices of the past year, it is unconscionable for the Government to plot changes that would endanger workers and the public.
It is not just about making work less safe; the Government are proposing to exclude overtime from holiday pay entitlements, which would be a hammer blow to the finances of the country’s lowest paid and most insecure workers. Under current rules, regular overtime is included when calculating holiday pay entitlement, ensuring that it reflects the hours that are actually worked. Scrapping those rules would mean that the holiday pay that workers get would be lower. The average full-time care worker would lose out on £240 a year, a police officer more than £300, an HGV driver more than £400 and a worker in food and drink processing more than £500.
The losses, however, will be even more severe for those who work irregular hours, such as retail workers, who work lots of overtime. USDAW, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, described the case of Leon, a warehouse worker who works night shifts for a major parcel delivery company. Employed on an 8.5-hour contract, but working 36.5 hours in an average week, Leon would lose £2,149.22 per year.
All of that is at the start of the stewardship of a new Secretary of State for Business, who wrote in “Britannia Unchained” in 2012 that the British are
“among the worst idlers in the world”.
The Secretary of State is wrong: far from being lazy, British workers work some of the longest hours of workers in any mature economy, yet our economy still suffers from poor productivity.
The solution is to strengthen employment rights, not to strip them away in a bid to make working people work even longer hours. The Secretary of State excused his comments as being made a long time ago, but in 2015 the right hon. Gentleman wrote and edited another pamphlet, called “A Time for Choosing”, in which he said:
“Over the last three decades, the burden of employment regulation has swollen six times in size”,
before singling out protections on working time, declaring that the UK
“should do whatever we can to cut the burden of employment regulation.”
Does he stand by that?
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
On recent writings, Labour had a manifesto in December 2019 that committed to a four-day week. Is that still its position?
Andy McDonald
There is a clear and active discussion about working time and the quality of life for working people. Since time immemorial, that discussion has taken place. I have no doubt that it will be a subject for debate and consideration between now and the next election, and way beyond. It is a perfectly proper area of debate.
The Secretary of State has spent a career calling for employment protections to be weakened, so he has a lot of ground to cover if he is to persuade the country’s 30 million-plus workers that he is on their side.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The hard workers my hon. Friend is talking about includes the many British Gas workers in my constituency, GMB members I met last week. I was very surprised to be told by them that the chief executive of British Gas had called personally to put pressure on them to accept new, worse terms. Bizarrely, he suggested that senior Labour figures had endorsed that. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that is absolute nonsense, that we stand in solidarity with them and that British Gas should get back around the table for serious negotiations? Of course, I draw attention to my membership of the GMB and the support that it has provided me.
Andy McDonald
I am more than happy and delighted to confirm that that is utter and complete nonsense. Is it likely? I just ask people: is that really likely? Of course it is not.
If the Secretary of State now wants to say that the 48-hour cap, holiday pay entitlements and rest breaks will be protected, and that he will scrap the planned consultation, perhaps he can say so in unequivocal terms here today and vote for our motion.
Today’s motion also calls on the Government to set a timetable to introduce legislation to end “fire and rehire” tactics. It is not a new phenomenon, but it has gained prominence because of the conduct of major employers such as British Airways, Heathrow and British Gas—some in circumstances that they claim to be justified by the covid pandemic. It is about sacking workers and hiring them back on lower wages and worse terms and conditions, including 20,000 British Gas employees who kept working through the pandemic to keep customers’ homes warm and worked with the Trussell Trust to deliver food parcels. I think of the engineer who explained that he was often the only face that people living in isolation were seeing. This is how they are repaid.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that fire and rehire has been around for a long time, but does he agree that that shows just how weak the current unfair dismissal laws are and how they really need to be strengthened?
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have had an erosion of protections and rights over many years, and we have to deal with it and review it comprehensively.
This also includes British Airways, whose use of fire and rehire was described by the cross-party Transport Committee as
“a calculated attempt to take advantage of the pandemic to cut…jobs”
and weaken the terms and conditions of its remaining employees, and it deemed this “a national disgrace”. The Leader of the Opposition was right to call for fire and rehire tactics to be outlawed, saying:
“These tactics punish good employers, hit working people hard and harm our economy. After a decade of pay restraint—that’s the last thing working people need, and in the middle of a deep recession— it’s the last thing our economy needs.”
We have repeatedly warned that the practice would become increasingly common, triggering a race to the bottom, and I take no delight in observing that this warning has come to fruition. Research published today by the TUC reveals that fire and rehire tactics have become widespread during the pandemic. Nearly one in 10 workers has been told to reapply for their jobs on worse terms and conditions since the first lockdown in March, and the picture is even bleaker for black, Asian and minority ethnic and young workers and working-class people. Far from levelling up, the Government is levelling down, with nearly a quarter of workers having experienced a downgrading of their terms during the crisis.
Fire and rehire is a dreadful abuse and allows bad employers to exploit their power and undercut good employers by depressing wages and taking demand out of the economy. It is all the more galling when those very companies have had public funds to help them to get through the pandemic. The economic response to the 2008 financial crisis in Britain was characterised by poor productivity and low wage growth. The Government fail to understand that well-paid, secure work is good for the economy, and greater security for workers would mean a stronger recovery. If the Government had listened to the Leader of the Opposition back in September, countless workers could have been spared painful cuts to their terms and conditions, but it is not too late for the Government to act. They can act now to introduce legislation to end fire and rehire and give working people the security they need. If they do that, they will have our full support.
Finally, I turn to the Government’s amendment, in which they say that
“the UK has one of the best employment rights records in the world”
and that the UK
“provides stronger protections than the EU”.
That is simply not the case. The UK ranks as the third least generous nation for paid leave and unemployment benefits out of the US and major European economies. A UNICEF analysis of indicators of national family-friendly policies has the UK at 34th on one index and 28th on another, lagging behind Romania, Malta and Slovakia and just edging ahead of Cyprus.
The Government’s amendment also “welcomes the opportunity” to strengthen protections for workers, but what are the Government doing with the opportunity that they so welcome? What have they been doing on fire and rehire? All we have had is sympathy and hand-wringing, when action was and still is required. Where were they on Rolls-Royce at Barnoldswick? It was Unite the union and the courage and determination of those brave workers that fought to secure their jobs, not this Government. What works best for the UK is what works best for its working people, and undermining their rights and protections does not cut it. Accordingly, Labour will not be supporting the Government’s amendment.
Why did the Secretary of State’s Department embark on this review, and how can it be that his Department has sought responses from companies without the consultation being published? Can he confirm that it is now dead in the water, or does he intend to bring it back at a later date? We were promised an employment Bill that would make Britain
“the best place in the world to work”.
The Opposition would very much welcome a Bill that did exactly that, but given his track record, we have major doubts. Perhaps he can tell the House when we will see that Bill introduced.
From this point on, it is about how we rebuild our country and secure our economy. That objective has to have working people—their interests and their health and wellbeing—right at the forefront. As a bare minimum, that has to include maintaining the basic protections that employees have had up to now and then building on them. Sadly, workers will find no hard evidence of this Government enhancing their rights and protections, but it is what they were promised, and it is what they are expecting, so we will be holding the Government to it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It will be no surprise to Members to learn that a very long list of people have indicated that they wish to speak. Not everyone will have the chance to do so, but we will begin with an immediate time limit of three minutes for Back Benchers.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I just want to make something very clear and unequivocal at the outset: we will not reduce workers’ rights. There is no Government plan to reduce workers’ rights. As the new Secretary of State, I have been extremely clear that I do not want to diminish workers’ rights, and on my watch there will be no reduction in workers’ rights. I do not want there to be any doubt about my or the Government’s intentions in this area. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) were kind enough to send me a letter in my first week in the job asking for reassurances on this matter. I am happy to report that I have provided those reassurances, and I am very willing to provide them every time.
We will not row back on the 48-hour weekly working limit derived from the working time directive. We will not reduce the UK annual leave entitlement, which is already much more generous than the EU minimum standard. We will not row back on legal rights to breaks at work. I will say it again: there is no Government plan to reduce workers’ rights.
The Government have managed to have a record that is unimpeachable on this subject. Our manifesto promised, among other things, to get Brexit done and to maintain the existing level of protections for workers provided by our laws and regulations. We have delivered Brexit, and we will not use this new-found freedom to reduce workers’ rights. In any case, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough said, our higher standards were never dependent on our membership of the EU. The UK has one of the best employment rights records in the world. It is well known that in many areas the UK goes further than the EU on workers’ protections. We have one of the highest minimum wages in the world, and the Government are increasing this again for workers on 1 April, but in the EU there is no requirement to offer a minimum wage or sick pay. In the UK, people get over five weeks of annual leave, minimum; the EU requires only four weeks. In the UK, people get a year of maternity leave; the EU minimum is just 14 weeks. The EU has only just agreed rights to flexible working, over 15 years behind the UK. The Opposition are simply wrong to hold the EU up as the gold standard. Our equalities legislation, and our maternity and paternity entitlements, are already considerably better than the EU’s. Now we have left the EU, our Government and Parliament are able to decide what rules should apply and make improvements where we believe there is a need to do so.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I have to make progress because lots of people want to speak in this debate.
We have already set out plans to make workplaces fairer. Our manifesto contains commitments to create a new single enforcement body for labour market abuses to give greater protections for workers, as well as plans to encourage greater flexible working. It is totally disingenuous for Labour to claim that we do not stand on the side of workers when our manifesto clearly says the direct opposite.
We will not take lectures on employment rights from Labour, because, as I said, our track record speaks for itself. It was a Conservative-led Government who introduced shared parental leave and pay in 2014, giving parents flexibility in who takes time away from work in the first year of their child’s life. It was a Conservative Government who introduced the national living wage in 2016, giving the lowest-paid workers the security of a higher wage to provide for themselves and their families. Ten years of progressive Conservative reforms pushed unemployment to a 45-year low. Before coronavirus hit, our employment rate was at a record high, with over 33 million people in work. By March last year, workers across the UK had enjoyed 26 consecutive months of real pay increases, and women and workers from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds made up a larger proportion of the workforce than ever before.
Stephen Doughty
On fire and rehire specifically, will the Secretary of State give way?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I have to make progress.
I know at first hand through my work as Energy Minister the importance of making sure that we have a high-wage, high-protection, high-skilled labour market to ensure that we can deliver the net zero transition and seize the opportunities of the green industrial revolution. The times have moved on. We have a new net zero focus, and clearly high wages and high skills are really at the centre of what we are trying to do as a Government.
That will be more crucial than ever as we rebuild our economy from the devastating impact of coronavirus. From the outset, the Government have acted decisively to provide an unprecedented package of support to protect our workers’ and our people’s livelihoods. The coronavirus job retention scheme, the first intervention of its kind in UK history, delivers countrywide support to protect millions of British workers. The scheme has helped 1.2 million employers across the UK to furlough 9.9 million jobs and has now been extended until April 2021.
Enforcement bodies are continuing to protect vulnerable workers and to work with businesses to promote compliance throughout the epidemic. We are concerned about reports suggesting that threats about firing and rehiring are being used as a negotiating tactic. We have been clear—
Stephen Doughty
The Secretary of State is speaking about fire and rehire, and his colleague the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told me that those tactics were completely unacceptable. Does the Secretary of State agree with those comments and does he share my concern? In September of last year, I met the chief executive of British Gas about that specific dispute and he tried to suggest that they were not using those tactics, despite having written to members in July to do just that. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is completely unacceptable in our labour market?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I think it is unacceptable. I will go further—as a constituency MP, I have a large number of constituents in Spelthorne who work for British Airways and I spoke directly to the old CEO, Alex Cruz, who has since left the company, and made exactly the points that the hon. Gentleman has just made to me. It is not acceptable.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his unequivocal indication that he condemns this practice. If that is so, will he legislate to outlaw it once and for all? We will support him if he does.
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I was saying, we have been very clear that this practice is unacceptable and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who is the Minister responsible for labour markets, has condemned the practice in the strongest terms on many occasions in this House. We have engaged ACAS to investigate the issue and it is already talking to business and employee representatives to gather evidence of how fire and rehire has been used. ACAS officials are expected to share their findings with my Department next month and we will fully consider the evidence that they supply.
The House should be left in no doubt that the Government will always continue to stand behind workers and stamp out unscrupulous practices where they occur. The Government have worked constructively with businesses and unions throughout the pandemic to ensure that our workers remain safe and we will continue to do so as the UK looks towards economic recovery. I am proud of the constructive relationship I had with trade unions in my former role as Minister of State for energy and I fully intend to continue in this vein as the newly appointed Business Secretary. I have already reached out to the union leaders and I spoke to the TUC general secretary, Frances O’Grady, only last week.
I want to conclude by reassuring employees across the country that we in Government continue to acknowledge the immense efforts our workers—our workforce, our people—have contributed to the effort against coronavirus. These are unprecedented times, and we fully understand the pressures that we are all labouring under. We will use the opportunities created by leaving the EU to build back better and maintain a world-leading position on employment rights. The House should be in no doubt that we are the party on the side of the hard-working people of this country.
Justin Madders
In his rather selective recollection of what the Government have done on workers’ rights over the past 10 years, the Secretary of State forgot to mention the reduction of consultation periods, the increase of qualifying periods for unfair dismissal and the introduction of employment tribunal fees. Will he mention those things, because they were certainly detrimental to working people in this country?
Kwasi Kwarteng
What I will mention is the introduction of the national living wage—[Interruption.] I will also mention the fact that we have doubled the personal allowance, which was at £6,450 when we came to office in 2010 and is now hitting £12,000. We take no lessons or lectures from the Labour party on helping the most vulnerable people in our society. This Government have a proud history of protecting and enhancing workers’ rights, and we are committed to making the UK absolutely the best place in the world to work.
Before I open the Floor to other Members for their contributions, I can confirm to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister will not be moved this evening.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
For the avoidance of doubt, the Secretary of State has not moved the selected amendment, as he has just said, and therefore the question before the House remains the question already proposed, as on the Order Paper. We now go to the Scottish National party spokesman, Drew Hendry.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) [V]
Madam Deputy Speaker, a very happy Burns night to you, the staff and everyone else. Could I also welcome the Secretary of State to his place this evening?
Workers deserve our thanks, our respect and our appreciation. Scotland should not have to protect hard-fought workers’ rights from the Tories and their Brexit chaos. By reneging on their promise to protect EU-derived workers’ rights, the UK Government would again prove that it is impossible to trust anything the Tories say, especially on Brexit. The SNP is clear that it rejects any regression of workers’ protections. However, the Scottish Government’s ability to tackle unfair working practices and to fully protect workers’ rights remains limited. As employment law is reserved to Westminster, the UK Government must take action.
Madam Deputy Speaker,
“using threats of firing and rehiring is unacceptable as a negotiating tactic”.—[Official Report, 13 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 293.]
These are not my words, but the words of the Prime Minister earlier this month, so why is nothing being done to stop this? While the SNP would support any legislation seeking to ban fire and rehire practices, the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands)—the Employment (Dismissal and Re-employment) Bill—is available now to do just that, and the Tories and Labour could help us change the law within weeks by backing his Bill.
When my hon. Friend introduced his Bill in June 2020 to ban fire and rehire practices, he wrote to the current leader of the Labour party and the then Tory Business Secretary—incidentally, with nearly 100 MPs co-signing the letter—urging them both to back his Bill. Given that the Labour leader called on the UK Government to
“Introduce legislation to end fire and re-hire”—
adding:
“If you do that, you will have our full support”—
surely now Labour must get behind the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend. To quote Burns,
“A mind that is conscious of its integrity scorns to say more than it means to perform.”
To my hon. Friend’s great credit, he has in fact submitted two Bills to Parliament over recent months seeking to outlaw the practice, which have been backed by all major trade unions, including Unite, the British Airline Pilots Association and GMB Scotland. The current Bill extends workers’ rights currently under the Employment Rights Act 1996 to prevent employers from forcing workers to sign up to wage cuts and inferior conditions under threat of dismissal. The simple amendment he proposes to existing employment legislation would benefit millions of people overnight, supporting responsible employers, while making it clear to those with less scruples that these sorts of actions are not permitted in any country across the UK.
The SNP has called time and again for the UK Government either to get behind my hon. Friend’s employment Bill or to bring in their own legislation to give millions of workers at Centrica and elsewhere the same protections enjoyed across Europe. We should all be willing to put party differences aside and work together in the interests of workers. The UK Government have a duty to act swiftly and decisively to ban fire and rehire practices. Until this happens, more employers will be encouraged to follow suit. Companies such as British Airways, Tesco and Centrica are the tip of the iceberg, and workers across these isles face unprecedented attacks on their wages and conditions via despicable tactics such as fire and rehire.
As I have said, my hon. Friend has led the charge to ban fire and rehire tactics and ensure that workers are not the victims of bosses looking to cut costs. We will of course listen to the warm words today, but the fact is that the Tories and Labour could help us change the law within weeks by backing the Bill. Let them now commit to action to support that Bill.
Turning to other matters, I think we have all been shocked by the details of the UK Government’s shabby and heartless treatment of their own Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency workforce that have emerged over the weekend. That sets a worrying precedent for the coming months and years in relation to workers’ rights.
We have heard from the Secretary of State tonight that he will not be following up the package of deregulatory measures following the UK’s exit from the EU. He said that he would not be ending the 48-hour week, and that he would not be tweaking the rules around rest breaks at work, overtime pay or other changes. But, of course, we have heard Tory Ministers make countless empty promises to protect EU-derived workers’ protections, and now that we have left the EU there are few who do not believe that they are going to renege on that promise.
Even if we believed that the Tories were intent on protecting workers’ rights—admittedly, that is a big ask—surely they would simply maintain those that were already enshrined in EU law, rather than ploughing ahead with a review and selecting what they want to discover. Despite initially dismissing the reports of watering down rights, the Tory Business Secretary confirmed last week that
“we wanted to look at a whole range of issues relating to our EU membership and examine what we wanted to keep.”
Of course, we can easily read that as the Government keeping the bare minimum that they can get away with.
With each day that passes, the damage being inflicted by the Tories’ Brexit deal on businesses and jobs becomes clearer; they have earned zero trust. As with fishing, they have shown that they will break any promise and sell out any group of workers, no matter the cost. As the STUC general secretary Roz Foyer said:
“We are alarmed, if unsurprised, by reports of early attempts to downgrade workers’ rights through amending the commitment to the EU Working Time Directive. We will vigorously oppose any attempt to dilute existing rights and are pleased that the Scottish Government, in line with its commitment to Fair Work, supports us in this.”
The SNP and the Scottish Government will continue to work in partnership with trade unions to challenge the UK Government to avoid a race to the bottom when it comes to pay and conditions. As I have said, people in Scotland can see that the Scottish Government’s ability to tackle unfair working practices and fully protect workers’ rights remains limited while employment law is reserved to Westminster, even though they are doing all they can to embed fair work practices across Scotland. In July 2020, Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Fair Work and Culture issued a refreshed joint statement with the STUC, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Institute of Directors and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, outlining the sheer commitment to fair work practices in Scotland across the public, private and third sectors.
The Scottish Government also published their fair work action plan last year to drive forward the ambition for fair work to be the norm in workplaces across Scotland. Through their flagship fair work first policy, they are rewarding and encouraging employers to adopt fair work practices by attaching fair work criteria to grants and other funding, as well as to the contracts awarded by and across the public sector. This includes: asking employers to commit to paying the real living wage, not the pretendy one that we hear about in the Commons so often; no inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts; and the provision of channels for an effective voice, such as trade union recognition.
Fair work first criteria will be incorporated into the policies and practices of the Scottish National Investment Bank, and are embedded across the enterprise and skills agencies, including the new South of Scotland Enterprise agency. If an anti-worker ideology continues at Westminster, it is vital that powers over employment are devolved to Scotland to allow our Parliament to get on with the crucial job of supporting employment and helping businesses to thrive.
By breaking the promise to protect EU-derived workers’ rights, the UK Government will again be proving that it is impossible to trust anything that the Tories say, especially on Brexit. We in the SNP are clear that we reject any regression of workers’ protections. The Scottish Government now need the powers to tackle unfair working practices and to protect workers’ rights. Employment law should no longer be reserved to Westminster. In the meantime, fire and rehire is an abomination. The UK Government and Members of all parties must now support my hon. Friend’s simple but effective Bill to outlaw it.
Scotland has not voted for a Tory Government since 1955. Unlike other parties, the SNP wants to put workers’ rights, and all other powers to create a fairer Scotland, in Scotland’s hands—not in the hands of Tory Governments we never vote for. Twenty opinion polls in a row have shown that the people of Scotland back that proposition. They must, and will, have their democratic right to choose a better future with independence.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
May I begin by associating myself with the remarks of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), about those workers who continue to go to their physical workplace during the pandemic? We should all pay tribute to them and share that noble sentiment. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his promotion to the Cabinet—it is well deserved. I know he will champion business in these challenging times and, in particular, the principles and practice of free enterprise.
We may not be moving the amendment, but I am particularly proud that it contains two words that we did not hear at all from the Opposition: job creation. Let us be clear: no matter what anyone says, there is broad consensus now across the House and the country about keeping the fundamental employment rights we have. Employers are familiar with them, employees understand them and the country generally supports them. However, it would be quite extraordinary, facing the economic pressures that we do, if a Conservative Government did not look at what supply-side reform, including deregulation and cutting red tape, could be brought forward so that we can strengthen our recovery as we eventually come out of lockdown, and there are two key reasons why they should do that.
The first is obviously the strength of the challenge. I am very proud that, as the Secretary of State said, we had the lowest unemployment since I was born in 1974 before we went into the pandemic. However, covid and the action that we have had to take have created inevitable economic pressure, and the impact on jobs will be seismic. In that context, the Government should use every lever at their disposal to strengthen the recovery as we move out of lockdown. That must include looking at what areas can be deregulated, while keeping fundamental employment rights in place.
The second reason is that we have to understand one of the most important assets of our economy. One of the key strengths of UK plc is that we have a flexible labour market. The World Economic Forum and others have recognised that. It is a key factor in why huge multinationals like to invest in the UK, and inward investment will be a crucial part of our recovery. It would therefore be deeply unwise if we were now to send a message to the rest of the world that we were going to unwind our flexible labour market.
This is about the message we send. If we had a four-day week—it seems that the Labour party is still considering that—there are many who would support it, but the message that that would send is that we were not going to be pro-business or to drive a strong recovery. Instead, the message we should send is that we will look at every single action we can take across Government, in every Department, to prioritise jobs, jobs, jobs and to achieve the two outcomes we must achieve above all else: reducing the risk of long-term scarring from covid to the economy and, most important of all, maximising those two great words—job creation.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I join the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) in paying tribute to all those who have worked through this covid crisis, and particularly to those in essential services.
I support the motion, and I agree with everything said from the Labour Front Bench: we must have no watering down of hard-won employment rights. However, a new employment Bill is also an opportunity for new rights, which are sorely needed by families in today’s world of work. The structure of our current rights was based on the notion of the employed male breadwinner, supported by the wife at home looking after their children. Even if she worked, her primary responsibility was to the children, and she would be supported by her own mother, who would most likely be retired. However, most women now work—many are self-employed rather than employed—and grandmothers, who used to be able to be relied on to step in, are still working.
We have introduced important rights, such as the right to request flexible work, paternity leave and parental leave, but there are glaring omissions, which should be addressed in any future Bill. A man or a woman employee is entitled to paid sick leave, but what if the child is sick? Parents cannot leave a sick child at home on their own. We should back our working parents when their child is sick. Instead, we leave them in the lurch. One parent—usually the mother—has to ring the employer and beg for time off, often to be told she has to take it as holiday or unpaid leave, which is especially hard for low-income families.
In a future employment Bill, we therefore need to give a parent of a primary school-age or younger child who cannot go to school or nursery when they are sick the right to paid leave. Other countries do that. That also needs to extend to grandparents, in case that is who is best placed to take the time off when the child is sick. Many parents rely hugely on grandparents, especially in the first year of a baby’s life, so we should factor them into parental leave too. Currently, the mother and the father can share 50 weeks’ leave between them. We should make it so that that could be split between, say, the mother, the father and one of the grandparents. The point is to give families the choice.
The Government mentioned having more employment rights for families in their manifesto. That is encouraging, and there will be strong support for that from the Labour Benches, but also from the Government Benches and, above all, from the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). I welcome the Secretary of State to his new job. If he wants to do some good and make a difference, I look forward to him agreeing across parties to make progress on this.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) [V]
I am very glad to have been called in this Opposition day debate, but I admit some curiosity as to why we are actually having it. The United Kingdom has one of the best records on workers’ rights not just in Europe but in the world, and since we have left the EU the Government could not have been clearer: those rights that we have are not going to be downgraded.
In fact, we start from a stronger position on workers’ rights than much of Europe already. We have one of the highest minimum wage rates in Europe. We do not just have parity with the EU on sick pay, paternity pay or annual leave; on these issues we exceed the EU by quite some way.
Our policy must be to diverge, but not to downgrade. If we want to attract the best people, businesses and teams, we need to show that we are the best place to live, to do business and to trade. We do not achieve that by slashing workers’ rights and making the UK a hostile environment for employees.
It is absolutely right now that we have full control of our laws that the power should rest with Parliament to determine what rules should apply to the UK and how they should be enforced. These next crucial years should be a time when we enhance workers’ rights, giving people stability and certainty in the workplace and enabling a high-employment economy where it pays to work. Recovering from coronavirus will mean we need to demonstrate a fresh sense of dynamism and evolve our economy, so that we are able to build back and so that people have the certainty and dignity of a job and the protection afforded within it.
Therefore, it is crucially important, especially now, that we protect those in low-paid work in the gig economy, and I am delighted that we are bringing forward measures to crack down on employers who abuse employment law, whether by refusing sick pay or even just taking their employees’ tips. We are scrapping the loophole that allowed some firms to pay agency workers less than permanent staff, and perhaps most profoundly, in a simple change that will make a huge difference to so many, we have extended the right to a day-one written statement of rights to all workers. That simple change details their rights and benefits, meaning over 1.5 million people in the current workforce will have their leave and pay entitlements set out clearly for the first time.
The road to recovery from coronavirus will be very bumpy indeed, but we will not recover at all if we do not look after the workers who turn up every day and who are the engine of our economy. I believe that the Government see just how crucial they are, and I am disappointed, but not surprised, that once again the Opposition would much rather champion headlines than support policies that they know they should be following.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) [V]
Is it not totally mind-blowing, in fact utterly grotesque, that during this pandemic the world’s 10 richest men have boosted their wealth by over £400 billion—half a trillion dollars—and here we are debating the upcoming Conservative attacks on working men and women, the bedrock of this nation, many of whom have paid a huge price during this pandemic? How many of these people will face a slash to their wages—a cut in their wages, terms and conditions—as a result of new legislation introduced by this Government?
It is crystal clear that key members of this Cabinet see coronavirus and Brexit as a perfect storm for tearing apart workers’ rights. Brexit gave this Government the opportunity they have long craved to set a bonfire under workers’ rights, and of course the mayhem caused by the virus has only served to fan those flames.
The appointment of the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) to his current position of Secretary of State fired the starting pistol; it gave the green light to the ideological attack on Britain’s workers. He has a very well documented and ideological view on the working people of this country. In 2012 a group of newly elected Conservative MPs published “Britannia Unchained”, a book that unashamedly claimed:
“The British are among the worst idlers in the world.”
They boomed:
“We work among the lowest hours, we retire early and our productivity is poor.”
They boomed it loud and clear from the rooftops, including the right hon. Members for Witham (Priti Patel), for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and of course for Spelthorne, who are now key members of the Cabinet. We need to look very carefully at what they have to say.
We have massive issues with regard to fire and rehire, which has been mentioned before, and I will also mention Heathrow, Barnoldswick, and the GMB action at British Gas. I ask the Secretary of State whether it is not time that British Gas got back around the table with the GMB, and time to stop scoffing at the loyal workforce and outlaw this heinous practice of fire and rehire. We need to ensure that constructive dialogue takes place with the trade unions and the workers in order to make progress.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) [V]
Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to send my best wishes to those in Scotland and around the UK who are celebrating Burns night this evening.
While I am an ardent supporter of workers’ rights, I will be abstaining on the motion this evening. I will briefly explain why: the recent use of these Opposition day debates to fuel hate campaigns on social media has been disgraceful. I welcome Opposition day debates, and I certainly welcome scrutiny of Government, but at this time of national crisis, with so many people worried about their jobs, their incomes and their health, having this type of aggressive political campaigning that seeks to mislead about the views of Members on my side of the Chamber is like pouring petrol on a bonfire. I hope our abstaining will inform people a little bit better about how Opposition day motions fit into the workings of Parliament.
To return to this evening’s important debate on workers’ rights, I add my thanks to all the workers who have continued to go to work throughout the pandemic to keep our country moving. I believed—probably naively—that the scaremongering on workers’ rights being eroded or abolished was just lines from the 2016 edition of the remain handbook, but the Labour party appears determined to perpetuate these myths. I am mystified when people say it was only our EU membership that led to us having workers’ rights, or that our membership of the EU was the only reason our workers’ rights were maintained. It is simply untrue.
To list a few of the really positive changes the Government have made, they have increased the reference period for calculating holiday pay to ensure greater fairness for those with variable working hours, scrapped the Swedish derogation to ensure agency workers are fairly treated and fairly paid, and required all workers to be given a written statement of their rights by their employer on day one. We estimate that 1.5 million people now have their rights set out clearly for the first time—this is such an important change, and I welcome it. I also welcome the strengthened protections for parents who tragically lose a child. While we all hope those rights are never needed, I commend the Government on having them in place when people are having such a horrific time.
Many people want to speak in this debate, so I will end by welcoming the words of the Secretary of State on ensuring that our workers’ rights are protected and making clear that we have no plans to erode them. I also welcome his commitment to investigate abuse of fire and rehire tactics, and look forward to his future work in this area.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
As a former trade union official, I am very grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. In the short time I have this evening, I would like to touch on the importance of workers’ rights in ensuring a happy, productive and innovative workforce.
As we have already heard, Ministers stated on a number of occasions that Brexit would enhance rather than weaken the EU-derived employment rights UK workers currently benefit from. Yet here we are less than one month after the end of the transition period and those rights are already under threat. If the proposed changes go ahead, they will likely lead many people, including the key workers Ministers have been clapping during the pandemic, out of pocket and working even longer hours.
Trade unions have a key role to play in all this. Employers want a motivated and productive workforce. Unions want their members to be treated fairly and to be able to participate fully in the workplace without compromising their family lives or general wellbeing. Longer working hours and changes to rest breaks will likely lead to a decrease in efficiency and an increase in sickness. The exclusion of overtime from holiday pay entitlement calculations will lead to employees feeling undervalued and resentful. And this is before we even start to consider employees who might need other support or reasonable adjustments.
Having strong employee rights and absolute clarity around those rights means that employees and employers alike can plan their time more effectively, work at a sustainable pace and help to nip causes of resentment and conflict in the bud. It does not take an employment rights specialist to understand that happy and fulfilled employees are much more likely to not only fulfil the basic requirements of their jobs, but to innovate and create positive change.
In October 2019, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), the then Business Secretary, said in this Chamber:
“As we leave the European Union, we have a unique opportunity to enhance protections for the workforce and tailor them to best support UK workers.”—[Official Report, 29 October 2019; Vol. 667, c. 205.]
I will finish by asking the current Secretary of State why his Government are not using this opportunity to strengthen those protections, rather than to reduce them. If he remains unconvinced, perhaps he should speak to some of our colleagues in the unions.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) [V]
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Now that we have left the EU and regained full control of our laws, it is absolutely right that Members in this place have the power to debate and decide what works best for the UK, and therefore which rules should apply, including on things like business growth, innovation, job creation and, of course, strengthening protections for workers. I was pleased to hear Ministers reaffirm, as they have time and again, the Government’s commitment to not lowering the standards of workers’ rights. Despite the scaremongering from the Labour party, this country goes further than EU minimums on workers’ rights, such as on paid leave, maternity leave and entitlement to sick leave, among others.
Moreover, under this Government the national living wage is set to increase again to £8.91 an hour from April 2021. This means about £345 extra per year for someone working full time. For the first time, more young people will be eligible for the national living wage, as the age threshold will be lowered from 25 to 23. Helping the low paid, improving access to opportunity, and encouraging innovation and growth is what the Conservative side of the House continues to fight for. That is why in our 2019 manifesto we committed to raising workers’ rights and standards, including new protections for workers, while preserving the dynamism and job creation that drive our shared prosperity. That was an election, of course, in which this Government received the overwhelming endorsement of the British public. It is a pledge I know the Government are committed to maintaining.
In my experience the best way to improve conditions for British workers is to have low unemployment in a free market, accompanied with targeted and direct investment in skills and training. That must be the case, and even more so as the covid-19 pandemic continues to disrupt our daily lives and our economy. As well as a sustained period of record lows of unemployment, this Government have gone further to protect and safeguard jobs by investing world-leading amounts during the pandemic and saving jobs with the furlough scheme, the self-employment income support scheme and a multitude of measures aimed at keeping businesses going during the pandemic. On low pay, on job creation, on lowering unemployment, on creating opportunity and on maintaining and enhancing workers’ pay and conditions, it is this Government that have the record to be proud of, and it is this Government that will make a success of Brexit for hard-working British people such as those in my Bridgend constituency.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) [V]
I wish to speak in favour of the motion in the name of my hon. and right hon. Friends. I declare at the outset that I am a member of the GMB and Unite unions.
The fact that the Government have consulted businesses on these changes shows that there is an outdated attitude towards industrial relations and workers’ rights at the heart of the Government. Good employment law protects the good employers from the bad. Employees are people; they are not tools that can just be laid aside on the whim of an employer. People have lives to lead, bills to pay, mortgages and rent; many of them have families that they need to support—to feed, to clothe and to plan holidays with. A contract of employment is a way of being able to plan ahead with security for those things. The terms should not be changed just on the whim of an unscrupulous employer.
Creating a culture where workers feel insecure in their jobs undermines the economy; it makes them less likely to spend money or to take out loans for bigger items. Creating such an environment is not just immoral but self-defeating, and attitudes need to change. Businesses need to understand that they need to act for the common good. It is no longer good enough for them to hide behind the fact that they are serving shareholders and to say, “This is why we are forced to rape the economy or pay poverty wages,” and fail to protect workers’ rights.
The covid pandemic, climate change and the state of the global finances make it imperative that we all work together for the common good. The solution is not to enfeeble workers or trample on their rights, yet companies such as British Gas and British Airways are telling their workers that they will be sacked and rehired on worse conditions. Those are hardly the British values that we want to promote globally.
British Gas/Centrica is sacking 20,000 of its workforce. It is telling them that they must sign new contracts dictated by the company or consider themselves to be sacked in April. Doing that at the time of a pandemic is grotesque. Centrica as a group had an operating profit of £901 million for 2019. In the first six months of 2020, the operating profit of its domestic heating business in the UK was £229 million, up 25% on the same period the previous year. Why are the workers who delivered that being treated so appallingly by that company?
I met workers from British Gas. Between them, they have many years of service to the company; some are the second or third generation in their family to work for British Gas. They are proud of the company that they work for; they value the jobs they do and the customers they serve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Member has exceeded his time.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
I would also like to declare that I am a member of Unite the union and was previously a regional official.
From the 10-hour day campaign in the 19th century through to the campaign for a 35-hour week in the engineering industry in the 1990s, the struggle to protect workers from exploitation and exhaustion has been part of the trade union movement’s DNA. When the current working time limits were first introduced, I was a convenor on the factory floor at the Vauxhall car plant in Ellesmere Port. I saw at first hand how those reforms improved the lives of people working in some of the most challenging and hazardous conditions imaginable—quite literally, cutting hours saved lives. Now those fundamental rights are under threat, and while I am no longer a union officer, I am privileged to be able to speak in their defence in the Chamber today.
The revelation that the Business Secretary is reviewing the working time directive is a matter of great concern. It threatens my constituents, for whom secure and well-paid work is already in short supply, as well as millions of workers across the country. The Government’s intent to take a wrecking ball to the hard-won gains of the labour movement, such as the 48-hour working week limit, holiday pay and rest break entitlements, is clear. The Prime Minister’s pledge that workers’ rights would be “higher than ever before” following our departure from the EU is exposed as yet another empty promise.
We should not be surprised. Many Government Members have long seen Brexit as a vehicle to attacks the rights of workers and the trade union movement. In 2012, the Secretary of State joined other senior Members now in the Cabinet in slandering British workers as being
“the worst idlers in the world”
and advocating a ruinous programme of deregulation and privatisation that would condemn workers’ rights to the dustbin of history. The fact that the new Secretary of State has chosen now to review workers’ rights shows how deeply out of touch the Government are with the mood and needs of the country. Instead of stepping up support for the millions of people who are still struggling desperately to make ends meet, including the nearly 3 million taxpayers yet to see a penny in financial support, this Government have instead frozen key worker pay, look set to cut universal credit and now want to undermine employment rights.
Let us be clear: diluting workers’ rights will do nothing to address the economic catastrophe we face. It will only compound the suffering and misery of the millions of British workers already suffering in-work poverty. As I speak, GMB members at British Gas are engaged in the most significant industrial dispute in the sector’s recent history. Their experience should serve as a potent reminder to every Member in this House that too many workers are still denied basic respect and security in the workplace. While British Gas employees have worked tirelessly during the pandemic to keep our homes warm and connected, their employer is cynically using fire and rehire tactics to cut pay and working conditions.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) [V]
I must start by saying that I am slightly confused as to how the Opposition have concluded that UK employment rights are an area of weakness in which to attack the Government. So far, aside from the usual baseless scaremongering, I still have not heard much in the way of common sense, fact or understanding. The United Kingdom has one of the best records in workers’ rights in the world, going further than the EU in so many areas. As the Government have stated time and again, that is not going to change.
Now that we have left the EU and regained full control of our laws, we can use this historic moment to enhance workers’ rights, not row back on them, ensuring that we can be a high-wage, high-employment economy that works for everyone, as we do right by the millions and millions of people in this country who work hard, get on and do the right thing.
I think all in this place can agree that the global pandemic has changed almost everything in daily life, including the world of work. Perhaps at no other stage in any of our lifetimes has it been more crucial that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the workers, grafters and go-getters who knuckle down and get on with it—the hard-working people of this nation who can turn sparks of inspiration into the tangible outputs of a dynamic economy.
To take politics out of it, all of us in this place and all well-run businesses know that providing employees with safe, secure and rewarding work environments is the way to get the best out of them. The package of measures we will maintain and strengthen builds on some of the best examples of good practice that are already in Britain’s best businesses. Before I got into politics, I saw a whole range of workplaces: I pulled pints, laid bricks and shovelled pick ‘n’ mix at Woolworths. I saw how a workforce that is tret well is a workforce that goes above and beyond to deliver results.
When it comes to workers’ rights, this nation is a world leader in countless areas, particularly when compared with the EU. For example, the EU has no requirement for a living wage. Here in the UK, it will be £10.50 an hour from 2024. The EU has no minimum requirement for sick pay. Here in the UK, it is 28 weeks. The EU’s minimum standard for maternity leave is just 14 weeks, compared to 52 weeks here in the UK. The EU’s minimum annual leave requirement is just 20 days, compared with a minimum of 28 days in the UK. Then there is the right to flexible working for all employees, on which this nation has led the way, and it has made a huge impact on the quality of life for so many families in my constituency and across the country. We introduced it and have maintained it in the UK since the early 2000s. The slow, glitchy and creaky EU agreed rules on it very recently, and it will offer the rights only to parents and carers.
I believe that one’s true character and nature is seen when the chips are down and crisis strikes. Even their staunchest critics would have to concede that this Government have stepped up. They know on what side their bread is buttered. When it comes to supporting businesses and workers, whether that is by taking unprecedented action to protect jobs and livelihoods across the UK—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has exceeded his time, and I have to be strict, as so many people are waiting to speak.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]
Today is the Welsh Valentine’s day, so I wish all key workers and everyone in the Chamber dydd Santes Dwynwen hapus.
So here we are, and what I am listening to is absolutely disgraceful. Workers in this country are facing the biggest crisis in generations, yet the Government have decided to strip away the rights of those key workers who are keeping this country going, and we know that those with low paid jobs are going to lose out the most. Managers, directors and, yes, even Members of Parliament like us will not be the big losers in any erosion of employment rights. It will be those on zero-hour contracts, those at the beginning of their careers and, as usual, women who will be disproportionately affected.
The Prime Minister proudly told us that he would not do anything to undermine workers’ rights, yet here we are facing a shake-up of the protections that are in place to defend workers and consumers from unsafe situations. Earlier this evening, I heard the Secretary of State say that his Government’s record stood for itself. Well, if we want to catch a glimpse of what we can expect from this Government, we need look no further than how they treat their own workers—yes, their own civil servants at the DVLA offices in Swansea. During the first lockdown, my office was contacted by numerous constituents complaining that they had family members shielding and they were at high risk themselves, but during this lockdown the situation has escalated. Since September 2020, 535 cases of covid-19 have been recorded among DVLA staff, sparking an outbreak in the call centre that has been declared an incident across all other sites of the DVLA.
I have been inundated with calls since the news broke on a weekend, and before. Many people are petrified of going into work there, but they have all asked for anonymity because they are scared of a backlash from senior management if it is found out that they have complained. This is the senior management team that would not engage with the local health protection team. It is incredible that a formal notice under regulation 8 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Wales) Regulations 2020 had to be given in order to get the DVLA management to co-operate with the incident management team. Even this evening, I am receiving messages about this. This is utterly shocking behaviour from one of the biggest employers in Swansea, and that employer is this Government. This is a Government agency that is treating its staff in a wholly unacceptable way. That is unacceptable, but thanks to the First Minister in Wales, the PCS and other agencies, it is being dealt with—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady has exceeded her time. I am wondering whether people who are participating virtually know that there is a clock on their screen. I hope that they can see it, because three of the last five speakers have spoken past their three minutes. I hope that the system is working. If by any chance it is not, I hope that someone will tell the broadcasting team.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
May I first declare that I am a member of Unite and the GMB trade union? Workers in Manchester and up and down the country are currently preoccupied with negotiating the coronavirus pandemic, trying to stay safe and well, caring for their children, fulfilling their working responsibilities and keeping businesses afloat while the Government are debating how best to rip up hard-won workers’ rights in post-Brexit Britain. The Minister says that no workers’ rights will be reduced, so can he confirm that the Government will not abandon the cap that prevents people from working more than 48 hours a week, and that they will not take any steps to undermine the entitlement to paid holidays or rest breaks at work?
Years of repeated assurances from the Government about their intention to protect and even strengthen workers’ rights after Brexit have now been revealed to be utterly meaningless. Many of the workers who will be affected by these changes are the same key workers that the Minister was so keen to clap for in the summer. Working people in my constituency have been to hell and back over the past year. They have made immense sacrifices and put themselves and their families at risk and yet this Government think that they have too many rights.
The motion also calls on the Government to end the abhorrent practice of fire and rehire, which has been used to threaten workers across the country, dismissing employers only to re-employ them on less favourable terms. This current environment means that working people are effectively paying for the economic impact of the covid-19 crisis. In Manchester, GoNorthWest is pushing ahead with its threat to fire and rehire bus drivers on new contracts. This will result in a 10% reduction in the number of drivers employed, an increase in unpaid working hours, and drivers’ conditions slashed.
Meanwhile, thousands of British Gas workers are being threatened with fire and rehire by the parent company, Centrica. Unions, including Unite and GMB as well as others across the country, are fighting this threat of fire and rehire and I thank all of them for their commitment and determination to protect working people during this difficult time. The Government could step in and stop this disgusting practice today, but instead they have chosen to tear up these rights. Weakening workers’ rights in the midst of a global pandemic and with the UK suffering the worst recession of any major economy is deeply unfair and reveals much about this Government’s priorities.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to talk about fire and rehire practices, which have been a source of enormous stress to many of my constituents. The Opposition asked the Government tonight to enact new law without any acknowledgment of what the common law currently says. When the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered the practice of fire and rehire in 1990, it said that
“you simply cannot hold a pistol to somebody’s head and say, ‘henceforth you are to be employed on wholly different terms’”
and remunerated at 50% of your contract. In those circumstances workers have a right to bring a claim for unfair dismissal, which the Court of Appeal later confirmed they have even if they take the new terms so long as they make it clear they are working under protest, and of course the tribunal can always order reinstatement at previous pay. The only way that an employer can get away with fire and rehire is by showing that there was a genuine business reason for their action. Here, I think, there is a vulnerability. We know that, after covid, many businesses will be able to show a fall in profitability as a way of justifying poor employment practice, but the answer, respectfully, is not to enact new laws, but to enhance the powers that already exist, for example, of employment tribunals to test the functionality of the business reason that is advanced.
The other elements in the motion on holiday pay, working time and rest breaks all have their provenance in the Employment Rights Act 1996, which, of course, is Conservative legislation. The Opposition argue that this Government threaten the right to include overtime in the calculation of holiday pay. That was only decided on in 2014 by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. It looked back at the working time regulations 1998 and found that workers should have had overtime in their holiday pay all along and, what is more, they had suffered an unlawful deduction from wages as a result of that. For 12 years of a Labour Government, British workers were short-changed in their holiday pay and that Government did nothing to close that loophole, so forgive me when I say that it is surprising to hear that it is we on this side who are threatening that particular right.
That is my overall concern about this debate. I am concerned that the Opposition are not really interested in confronting the real challenges facing the labour market because they are too busy fighting the battles of yesterday. What do the Opposition say, for example, about automation, which the ONS says threatens 1.5 million jobs in this country over the next few years? We on the Conservative Benches may not have all the answers, but at least we are doing the thinking and asking the right questions—for example, with strategies such as the lifetime skills guarantee to build dexterity and resilience in the labour market. We are coming up with creative, progressive solutions for the issues that lie ahead.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I suggest to the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) that perhaps she should read some of the Labour party’s policy papers on automation and a range of other subjects.
I was not shocked to learn that the Tories were reviewing trade union rights—it is what Tory Governments do every time they are elected. I was also not surprised that the so-called review of rights is to be undertaken by a body comprising several notorious anti-trade union employers. Nobody can trust this process and nobody can trust the assurances this evening from the Secretary of State, a man who has spent his life threatening trade unions and employment rights.
If any Member believes we have the best employment protections on the globe, as we have heard, I urge them to look at how my constituents who work at Heathrow airport are being treated by their employer, Heathrow Airport Ltd. I remind colleagues that when at the beginning of the pandemic many Members were desperately seeking to have their constituents repatriated, it was my constituents at Heathrow who worked throughout to keep the airport functioning to enable their return. The reward from their employer has been that all 4,000 workers have been fired and hit by forced rehire on vastly inferior contracts, with wages cut by 25%—£8,000—without any chance of protection in law, contrary to what the hon. Member for Newbury said, because the company has ridden a coach and horses through the existing legislation.
While Heathrow management argues in court for a third runway on the grounds that aviation will soon return to normal, elsewhere it is using the pandemic to impose cuts in wages and terms of employment. Unite the union offered a deal that would enable temporary measures to be put in place to save money until the airport returns to normal, but it was rejected by the company. Heathrow Airport Ltd has a record of borrowing to pay massive dividends and high director salaries but paying little in tax, and it is also now using traditional strike-breaking measures.
Industrial action is starting again at Heathrow. Unite members in the Uxbridge constituency have not had a word of support from their local MP, but let me send them my message of support and solidarity. If this Government want to reassure us about their employment credentials, they can confirm tonight that they will legislate to close the loopholes in the existing law with regard to fire and rehire; they can condemn Heathrow Airport Ltd for the treatment of its employees; and, yes, Ministers can join me in sending a message of solidarity to the strikers at Heathrow.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) [V]
Here we are again: another Monday, another Opposition day motion based on one newspaper report and framed to satisfy Labour’s endless search for social media attack ads. I speak as the proud granddaughter of a docker, from a working family. The Secretary of State has made it crystal clear that the UK does indeed have one of the best employment rights records in the world—one to be proud of, never dependent on the EU and frequently stronger than the EU’s. Our manifesto commits us to maintaining existing protections for workers and we will embrace the opportunity to decide which rules work best for the UK—those that encourage business growth, innovation and job creation.
The Government not only commit to maintaining existing workers’ rights but look to the future—a future in which we need to ensure that those same workers enjoy all the opportunities of an agile and dynamic jobs market. I have said it in this Chamber before and I do not hesitate to say it again: the heroes of our health crisis have been the incredible doctors, nurses, care workers and key workers. The heroes of the economic crisis will be the job creators, innovators and entrepreneurs who will create the high-growth jobs of the future. They need a Government who will prepare the best pitch for them, focusing on jobs, skills and working conditions fit for the 21st century. The working environment is changing at pace as we speak. Tens of thousands of people are working remotely from home, which raises new issues. To what extent should employers be able to constrict workers’ homes as workplaces? To what extent should employers be able to monitor employees? How can we protect workers against potentially overbearing, all-encompassing technology? How can we scale up innovation and skill our workforce to deliver the green technology of the future?
The Labour party does not have any answers. The Labour party is permanently rooted in the 1970s. It has just confirmed that it is considering a four-day week. Labour Members recently stood on a manifesto that aimed to nationalise energy, mail, water and transport and even establish a state drugs company. While Labour wants to turn the companies that delivered our life-saving vaccines into the Trabants of the pharmaceutical sector, this Government will care for the future of work and the future of workers.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
For the convenience of the House, I should inform you that the winding-up speeches will begin at 9.40 pm with Ed Miliband, followed by Mr Paul Scully at 9.50 pm, and the Question will be put at 10 pm.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
This Government, like all Tory Governments, have an obsession with the supposed need for deregulation. It is not just a reasonable concern with promoting what works, while respecting and protecting employees—were it just that, we would not be here tonight. Rather, it is an article of faith and impossible to disprove to the true believer. We have some sensible, proportionate, humane regulation of work, but it is not sufficient, and there is the possibility of an individual member state opting out. The UK, even while in the European Union, was the member state making the most use of that opt-out provision. Still, the true believers say it is not enough; Opposition Members are protesting too much, and the Government have no plans to reduce workers’ rights. But we must measure the value of this Government’s word against their dire real-world performance—the promises made, the reassurances given and the piffle deployed. By that measure, reality is already trumping bluster, so anyone but the true believer would be naive to take them at their word.
I would be happy enough to be proved wrong, of course. The review, now apparently abandoned, might have given my constituents in low-paid, insecure extensive and intensive jobs some relief. I share their concern for protecting the working time directive, the right to paid annual leave, proper breaks from work and all the rest of it, and protection from fire and rehire. If, however, this abandonment is in fact just a tactical pause, may I suggest a few topics for a future review? It might consider why the UK is not following the international trend towards lower working hours. It might look at how many low-paid workers in insecure, long-hours jobs are also doing another job, just to make ends meet. It might consider why parental leave is so insufficient, or it might assess the contribution of breaks, minimum rest periods and leave from work to promoting productivity and preventing employee burn-out.
It might consider those things among a host of other matters, so as to achieve the Secretary of State’s stated aim of a “really high standard” for workers, but I am not confident that a review by this Government would address those important matters. Rather, this looks like a side-step towards the real aim: that of creating a low-wage, low-regulation, free-for-all economy where the cats are truly fat and weakness is a licence to exploit.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) [V]
I start by welcoming the Secretary of State to his post. We have some of the highest standards of workers’ rights in the world, and I strongly welcome his assurances that those will not be lowered. However, the pandemic has exposed unsettling practices, including some employers using digital surveillance software to track their employees’ homeworking. The most high-profile software used for that purpose was Microsoft’s productivity score, which allowed employers to track users’ activity. While that has since been adjusted to hide individual data, it is clear that other pieces of software could easily fill the gap.
I know from personal experience how distressing this sort of probing from employers can be, albeit in a more analogue fashion. At one stage in my career as a successful sales manager, after my commission was cut, I entered a period where my sales performance slipped. That prompted my employer to take monitoring to a concerning level. A tracker was placed in my car. I constantly received phone calls demanding updates. I received regular, aggressive emails, and I was summoned to meetings. The entire episode was unpleasant and intrusive. It felt like an invasion of my privacy, and as though I was being deliberately bullied out of the company.
To my employer’s surprise, however—and, I imagine, to the surprise of some hon. Members—I was a member of the trade union Prospect. Thanks to its help and attendance at meetings, we arrived at a resolution. By that point, the relationship with my employer had become untenable, and I moved to a direct competitor, Teal HealthCare, part of the Senator Group.
Teal was a dutiful employer, which allowed me the freedom to excel at my job again. It paid me until I was elected. I refer Members to my entry in the register of interests. It was incredibly supportive when I became an MP, and I thank Teal and the Senator Group for their backing, and Prospect for helping me through a difficult period. Ironically, after moving to Teal, I helped to win the biggest contract awarded in the sector, in direct competition with the employer that drove me out—he who laughs last.
The important point, however, as digital monitoring begins to appear more attractive to employers, in particular if some seek to adopt remote working patterns after the pandemic, is that that approach can backfire. Used properly, performance monitoring is a vital tool for managers to encourage progression and to resolve workplace issues to the benefit of the firm and of the employee. However, clearly there is a distinction between monitoring performance on the one hand and monitoring activity on the other. I hope that employers reflect on that.
Finally, I strongly recommend that anyone in a professional environment—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Sorry, Mark, you just ran out of time there.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
I am speaking today as a proud and long-standing member of Unite and the GMB. I have received support as set out in my entry in the register of interests.
Over the past nine months, we have seen the shameful tactics of fire and rehire used to hit workers in the middle of a pandemic and in the worst economic crisis in 300 years. The inaction of this Government as that has happened has been inexcusable.
Six months ago, I spoke in this Chamber to raise the case of a constituent of mine who had started working for British Airways more than 20 years ago, and who faced losing their job or being rehired on worse pay and terms than when they had started. Despite having taken hundreds of millions of pounds of Government money intended to protect workers’ jobs, British Airways laid off more than 12,000 staff altogether, while pushing ahead with plans to fire the rest and to rehire them on worse terms and pay.
At the time, I warned that if the Government let British Airways get away with that, we would see other companies following the same shameful path. That is exactly what happened. Workers at Heathrow airport were forced to take four days of strike action last month over plans to fire the entire 4,000-strong workforce and to rehire them on inferior contracts, resulting in pay cuts of up to £8,000 a year. They are due to walk out again in February. As I said when I attended their rally—organised by Unite—with my neighbours, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), I will stand by them throughout their dispute.
Likewise, British Gas has now announced its own fire and rehire scheme. The GMB is leading the fight against changes to terms and conditions covering the 20,000-strong UK workforce, including pay freezes and changes to working hours. Engineers who refuse to sign will lose their jobs at the end of March.
Fire and rehire is immoral and should be banned. Today’s motion seeks to outlaw those tactics, and to protect holiday pay entitlements and the right to work no more than a 48-hour week. The Prime Minister promised that, after leaving the EU, our standards on workers’ rights would be higher than ever before. Members on the Government Benches have the chance to prove today that that is a promise they intend to keep.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) [V]
For the Labour party to decide on our employment rights, it first needs to win a general election. The good news is that the British working classes will not allow that; they do not trust Labour.
The United Kingdom has one of the best records on workers’ rights anywhere in the world, but of course the Labour party is still bitter about us leaving the EU. It does not think that our elected MPs should have the power to decide what rules apply in the UK. It is the policies of the Labour party that threaten workers’ pay and conditions. It wants to keep people on benefits and flood the workplace with cheap labour, through free movement. How does that help the British worker? It does not.
Our new Business Secretary has been very clear: we are not going to lower the standards of workers’ rights. Why would we? It makes no sense at all. Even the Mayor of London, who gets most things wrong, got it when he said there was no evidence for Labour’s claims that workers’ rights would be eroded after Brexit.
However, I think we should always look at strengthening employment rights, especially when some workers are being exploited by people who, quite frankly, should know better. Let us start with the Labour party. During the 2015 election, I recall that security guards at Labour’s offices were being paid less than the living wage, despite the Labour party being an accredited living wage employer. I am not quite sure who the Labour party leader was at this time, but perhaps the Minister could remind the House when he sums up.
In 2018, four Labour Front Benchers advertised jobs in their offices for below their own £10 an hour living wage pledge. It is total hypocrisy: they say one thing and do another. They say they are against private schools, yet send their own kids to private schools. They say they want better workers’ rights, yet fail their own employees.
In a nutshell, we have some of the best protections in the world, and I am confident that this Government will go much further. Meanwhile, I predict that the Labour party will slide much further back, as the real workers in this country are sick to death of hearing them moaning all the time. Now, I have done my time, done my graft, done my shift down the pits, but what do they really know about workers’ rights? Absolutely nothing, because most of them have never done a proper day’s work in their lives. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; that’s me done.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]
A few years ago, a number of free market extremists published a book claiming that British workers
“prefer a lie-in to hard work”,
slandering them as
“the worst idlers in the world”
who
“work among the lowest hours”.
One of the authors is now the Foreign Secretary, another the Home Secretary, another the International Trade Secretary, and another the new Business Secretary, who has established a new, 30-strong panel of business leaders to discuss changes to workers’ rights. Len McCluskey, the general secretary of Unite the union, is right to warn the Government against refusing to engage with the trade unions on the same basis.
These authors turned Cabinet members would all proudly call themselves Thatcherites, and they now want to use both Brexit and this current economic crisis to drive back workers’ rights—a chance to deliver Thatcherism 2.0. Unemployment is set to soar. Millions will be thrown further into poverty and debt. The Conservative party views that not as a crisis but as an opportunity—a chance to exploit people’s vulnerabilities and their fears of not being able to feed their children—to force them into ever-worse working conditions.
With fire and rehire as a blueprint for the economy, one in 10 workers already affected and a race to the bottom, who will benefit? For over 40 years, ever since Thatcher set about smashing the trade unions, the share of the cake going to workers has been getting smaller. In 1976, wages made up 64% of GDP; the figure now is only 54%. That is a huge transfer from workers to line the pockets of the already super-rich. That is why poverty is up. That is why people find themselves working harder and harder just to stand still. More attacks on workers’ rights will make it even harder.
We will hear denials from the Conservative party that it plans to dilute workers’ rights. It has a chance to show that it has no malintent, by backing Labour’s motion that opposes fire and rehire and protects rest breaks at work and holiday pay entitlements. Given that the Tories like to claim that they are now the party of workers, they should go even further by giving everyone full rights at work from day one on the job, banning zero-hours contracts and reintroducing sector-wide collective bargaining. Sadly, such change will have to wait for a future Labour Government.
In the meantime, let us be absolutely clear. If the Tories try to proceed with a bonfire of workers’ rights, they will have one hell of a fight on their hands. I salute the trade unions taking part in that fightback. I urge the Government to think again.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Today, we have seen the Labour party do its typical thing for Opposition day debates—roll out its spin machine, this time to cling on to EU regulations by the back door, rehashing lines from the remain campaign—but we can all see through it. My constituents do not want to hold on to EU rules and regulations. What they want is a high-wage, high-skill, high-standard economy: high wages by introducing a new immigration system that ends the practice of people being brought into the UK to undercut our workforce; high skills by using schemes such as kickstart, the lifetime skills guarantee and the new skills for jobs White Paper; and high standards, reflecting the clear commitment from the new Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy who said at the Dispatch Box that there will be “no changes” to workers’ rights in the UK.
We have some of the best standards in the world for workers—there will be no change. What are those standards? We have 28 days of annual leave in the UK, compared with a requirement of 20 in the EU. Parental leave allowance stops for a child of eight in the EU but at 18 in the UK. Maternity leave is paid for 39 weeks in the UK, but for only 14 weeks in the EU. However, protecting UK workers means more than just these rights; it is about making sure that people get a decent wage for the work that they do. Again, it is the Conservative party—MPs on this side of the House—that is committed to making that happen. It is this Government who have cracked down on employers not paying the national minimum wage. It is this Government who have increased the national minimum wage by more than 50% since 2010, and there is 20% more to go before 2024.
Let us not forget that when Labour were in Government, they scrapped the 10p tax bracket, hitting those on the minimum wage. That is not protecting British workers. Let us put that into pounds—under the Labour party, when it left power, someone earning the minimum wage and working full-time would pay £815 a year in tax. Today, someone on the minimum wage working full-time pays £672 in tax. Take-home pay has increased from £767 under Labour to £1,200 today, so the Labour party might want to talk about protecting workers but in reality it means nothing of the sort. It wants to tie us to EU rules in perpetuity, dismantling our flexible workforce. We need to recognise the protections we have, recognise the measures that we have taken and continue to build a flexible, highly skilled and well-paid workforce.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
I declare my membership of Unite the union. We all clapped our essential workers last year as they put their lives at risk to keep our country going, but many of them—bus drivers, shop workers, and energy and transport workers—were sadly repaid with the spectre of fire and rehire.
I am informed that nearly 500 Greater Manchester bus drivers at Go North West are potentially facing fire and rehire. This would see a 10% reduction in the number of drivers employed, an increase in unpaid working hours and conditions for drivers slashed. Their trade union, Unite, insists that the firm is using the pandemic to force through changes that it started to develop in 2019, long before covid. The company stressed a desire to make efficiency savings in the business, and I am told that concessions were subsequently outlined by trade union officials. A pay freeze in 2020 was agreed and this, along with driver turnaround and other suggestions regarding lowering overheads, brought considerable projected savings beyond the original amount desired. However, I understand that despite this, changes to drivers’ contracts of employment, a flexible working agreement and a pay agreement are still being demanded. Sadly, Go North West withdrew from collective consultations a week ago. This is no way to treat workers, let alone those who have put their lives at risk in this pandemic. Indeed, the Office for National Statistics highlighted today that bus drivers are an occupational group with raised rates of covid-19 deaths.
Unite is demanding that Go North West immediately suspends the threat of firing and rehiring these workers and returns to the negotiating table, and I agree, but the Secretary of State can play his part too. He can urgently outlaw such fire and rehire tactics. He can amend the Employment Rights Act 1996 to provide that it would be unfair to dismiss someone to achieve a reduction in their pay, benefits or conditions of employment. He could also amend it to make it unfair to dismiss an employee for economic or organisational reasons that are not necessary to secure the survival of the business, and define the clear burden of proof. He knows that this crisis has brought with it an opportunity for the most unscrupulous employers to manipulate their workers. Let me be clear: this is abuse, and he has the power to stop it today.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) [V]
This country is a brilliant place to live and work, and when it comes to supporting workers it is the Conservative party, as was proved at the ballot box just over a year ago, that is the party of workers and of business and the economy. We are also the party that understands what workers want and aspire to, not just in their workplace but in their communities, like mine in Guildford. That is why we stand proudly on our manifesto commitment to raise workers’ rights standards and to strike the right balance between the flexibility that the economy needs and the security that employees deserve, including new protections for workers. It is the Conservative party that has a plan for jobs as we recover from this pandemic, including exciting new green jobs, and it is this party that will help to upskill workers to take advantage of jobs that are, even this minute, being created.
Although it was not moved, I speak in support of the amendment tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Now that we have restored full parliamentary sovereignty, this Parliament will decide which policies are right for workers, our future innovation and our job creation. Because we recognise how important the relationship is between employers and their employees, we have sought to save as many jobs as possible by introducing the furlough scheme. It might feel as though we are in the depths of winter, but I, for one, look forward to the thaw that the vaccine roll-out will bring and the renewed hope for all workers who will be a key part of the green shoots of our economic recovery. I, too, thank all those who have tirelessly continued to work throughout the past year for their courage and fortitude.
Last year, I took part in the baby loss debate, where Members from both sides of this House spoke movingly on this incredibly difficult subject. One of the single most important things we have done is to strengthen employment protections for parents who lose their child, supporting everyone who goes through this tragedy. We have implemented a statutory right for a minimum of two weeks’ leave for all employed parents if they lose a child under the age of 18 or suffer a stillbirth from 20 weeks of pregnancy. Eligible parents will be able to claim statutory pay while absent from work. This is the most generous offer on parental bereavement leave and pay in the world.
We Conservatives are the party of the family. It was a Conservative-led Government who introduced shared parental leave and pay in 2014, giving parents flexibility in who takes time away from work in the first year of their child’s life. Labour has abandoned the family, community, pride in their country, and support for the values that our workers hold dear. Throughout this last difficult year, and going forward, it is the Conservatives who will continue to champion these values. It is the Conservatives who are the party of the worker.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) [V]
The UK has high levels of workers’ rights. The hon. Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) have helped us to understand why we are having this debate, which is another episode in the long series of Labour Members’ bombastic scaremongering. First, they whip up anxiety on an emotive issue—today, employment rights. They undermine, they misrepresent and they scare the public. Then they bring it to the House and use the authority of this Chamber to legitimise their spin. Opposition day debates such as this never serve to shine a light on issues and foster positive debate; they serve only to attack and to stoke fear. The final stage is to bring the issue online. This is where we see the results of their dangerous rhetoric: it generates such divisive discourse and leads to horrific abuse of Conservative Members, ending with vandalism and even death threats, sadly often targeted at female Members. It has to stop.
It is correct that things such as fire and rehire are challenging, but they are part of an inherent flexibility that has to exist in the workplace but must be used responsibly. The Government have engaged ACAS to provide evidence and report on the situation, and I am confident that it will be properly dealt with. The national living wage is increasing, boosting the income of the lowest paid, and who is responsible? This Conservative Government. The £280 billion package of support to get people through the last 12 months, and beyond, has been brought in by this Government while the Labour party saw it as a good crisis to exploit.
In many areas, the UK has higher levels of employment rights than were required as part of our EU membership, confirming that if we had wanted to have lower standards, we could have done, but did not—and do not intend to. Leaving the EU has not lowered our standards. It has given us the opportunity to continue to raise workers’ rights, just as we always have. I commend the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for her ideas about assisting with child illness. Sadly, she is in the minority in her party in terms of helpful suggestions.
It is typical of the Labour party to avoid talking about the real issues. If it is not employment rights, it is the NHS. In 1997, Tony Blair warned us there were 14 days to save the NHS, then it was 24 hours on the day before polling. By 2012, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) declared we only had three months to save the NHS, before telling us again in 2015 that we only had 100 days. Despite these predictions of doom and disaster, it is still there, and it has brought us through some of the darkest and toughest months in recent history.
The Government are committed to strengthening and protecting workers’ rights, but Labour Members already know that. I urge them to buck up their ideas, drop the spin and join the real debates, because a strong Opposition make for a stronger Government, and that is what we should all be striving for.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
As a former industrial policy officer for the trade union the GMB, an employee of USDAW prior to entering this place and a proud member of the GMB and Unite the union, employment rights are a subject incredibly close to my heart. The twin vulnerabilities created by the post-covid economic landscape and the removal of safeguards in European law following the transition period are incredibly troubling.
One such entitlement under threat is the right to holiday pay based on someone’s average hours of work, rather than their contractual hours, within the working-time directive. In Warrington, staff employed by care provider Lifeways are routinely being underpaid when they take holiday—something all of us can agree is a basic working entitlement, and of especially vital importance to care workers who look after our communities’ most vulnerable. One hundred and fifty staff have come together with their trade union, Unison, to lodge a formal grievance to resolve the issue. I stand behind them in this and in their right to escalated action if they do not receive what is rightfully theirs.
But employment rights are of little value if they cannot be enforced, and the 45% increase in the already problematic backlog of employment tribunal single claims since March last year is alarming. This is especially concerning given that, when I raised with the Government the lack of a legal, immediate and enforceable right to request flexible furlough for parents—with 71% of mothers who have asked for furlough for childcare reasons having been denied it by employers, according to research by the TUC—the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), suggested that those who have been victimised should contact ACAS—not remotely good enough.
Similarly, contractual rights accrued by workers with long service are shown to be worth naught if the Government do not address the growing scourge of fire and rehire—something that, shamefully, is being threatened by Centrica to key workers in British Gas. This sets an awful precedent for workers everywhere and must be outlawed by the Government.
Finally, this Government’s failure to get a handle on this virus and the procedures of this House during the pandemic have meant that the vital private Member’s Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), the National Minimum Wage Bill, has ended up on the chopping block. The Government must commit to bringing forward this legislation to end the legal loophole that stops care workers from earning at least the national minimum wage as a result of sleep-out shifts. They need this protection more than any claps or other token gestures of support from this Government.
I am fed up of hearing from those on the Government Benches about this country’s record on employment rights while these issues, and many more that cannot be touched on within the time limit for this debate, remain unresolved.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
A former Leader of the Opposition called businesses predators, but business is what makes Britain great. It is what will see us flourish outside the EU and what will help us all pull through this pandemic.
As the Opposition seem still to think that business is what sets workers’ rights back, let me give them some insight. The Thomas Dudley Group in my constituency is a family-owned group of manufacturing businesses in the Black Country, employing more than 400 people. Before the first lockdown last March, it made the decision to pay all employees up to 10 days’ full pay while they were off sick with the virus, rather than simply paying statutory sick pay. When lockdown inevitably impacted on the business it saw a 70% reduction in its turnover, but to protect as many staff as possible all directors took pay cuts of between 20% and 50%. Where parents were struggling with childcare, the business supported them to work from home or to change shifts to accommodate it. The business supported some employees with interest-free loans when they found themselves in hardship. It introduced flexitime working where possible to support a better work-life balance and is introducing long-service holidays of a day for every five years worked.
That does not sound to me like predator behaviour at all, and pitching business against workers, as Labour wants us to, is wrong for all concerned. Employers and employees must be given the flexibility to arrange the terms and conditions of employment. We should expect all employers to treat their workers fairly, much like Thomas Dudley in my constituency. However, there are businesses that appear to have pursued fire and rehire tactics. I have constituents who have been in touch with me about this who work for British Gas. When so many are worrying about their jobs and the impact the pandemic will have on their livelihoods, where it is affordable employers should treat their workers fairly and with compassion. I look forward to the outcomes of the work the Government are doing with ACAS better to understand the issue of firing and rehiring.
It is essential that we all come together, whatever our political allegiances, to protect lives and livelihoods. The Opposition would do well to focus on job creation, rather than seeking ways to throttle the economy.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]
I declare an interest as a member of Unite and the GMB union.
What has this pandemic taught us about how we value and reward the people who work hard to look after our loved ones, teach our kids, deliver our shopping and keep our country moving, even during a crisis? For a start, we should turn all those claps for key workers into proper pay and proper protections. We know that coronavirus has exposed many deep-rooted problems in our country. This should be a turning point for improving people’s working conditions, not an opportunity to smash and grab workers’ rights.
That is why I supported the private Member’s Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) that sought to strengthen protections for care workers to see that they are paid properly for all their hours, including travel time. The fantastic Luton Age Concern is already doing that, but it should be the norm, not the exception.
Health and social care staff have been the backbone of our response to the virus. Earlier this month, I presented a petition on behalf of my constituent Ernest Boateng and more than 100,000 others calling on the Government to ensure paid leave for pregnant women who cannot work from home. Ernest’s wife Mary sadly lost her life to coronavirus in April. She was just 28 and heavily pregnant. Mary worked as a nurse at the hospital in my constituency. No new guidance or risk assessment can bring her back, but we need to look again at how we protect pregnant women in work. I agree with Dr Jo Mountfield from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists who said last week that the Government need to provide more support for expectant mums in this crisis. As the Government bring forward their employment Bill, they must include improved protection at work for pregnant women. So far we have been turned down, but Mr Boateng and I would love the opportunity to meet a Government Minister to discuss the issue. This is important.
That is why Labour acts to protect workers’ rights, while the Conservative party just talks about it. We would not be delaying a pay increase for health and social care workers, many of whom, as we debate here today, are giving blood, sweat and tears on wards as they fight this virus. We would protect people’s free time by stopping the Government’s plan to extend the working week, and we would stop business using the pandemic as an excuse to fire and rehire people on lower pay and weaker terms —just like British Gas bosses are doing in the face of a fierce and fabulous campaign by British Gas engineers and the GMB union. We would stop fire and rehire. Alongside the trade unions, we have campaigned to go further on zero- hours contracts, the gender pay gap and protecting pay and people’s livelihoods. I am proud that Labour has been, and always will be, the party of workers for workers.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) [V]
There is a lot in this Opposition motion that we can all agree on, which is why the Government are right not to move a counter-amendment. None of us wishes to alter important employment rights such as rest breaks at work, nor should any Opposition MP want to alter the changes brought in by the Conservative Government of the last decade, such as shared parental leave and the national living wage, which has increased a 21-year-old’s earnings by over a third, or more than £5,200 a year. Let us never go back either on the near doubling of the tax-free allowance since 2010, which the Secretary of State referred to, and which amounts to an extra £1,000 a year of take-home pay.
So far, then, there is agreement. However, there were also telling things missing from the shadow Minister’s speech. First, there was a misreading of the Secretary of State, whose first announcement asked for faster payment of small businesses by big business, making sure that those companies—the subcontractors and the members of the Federation of Small Businesses and of the chambers of commerce, and which are the lifeblood of every constituency—get paid properly, especially during the pandemic.
There was a lot else that was missing. The second thing was that the shadow Minister failed to answer my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who asked about the Labour party’s manifesto commitment to a four-day working week. If that is Labour’s recipe for increased productivity, success and Britain’s global way forward, I invite the shadow Minister to come down to Gloucester and talk to some of our Queen’s award-winning manufacturers to get a dose of reality. It is a competitive world, and we do not win with a four-day week.
The third missing element from the speech was that the Opposition did not look at themselves. The worst published cases of employer abuses of employee rights have been in Leicester. Which party runs the council, with 52 out of 54 councillors, and has an elected Mayor, returned three times, and three out of three MPs? It is a national embarrassment, and until Labour sorts out the abuses in Leicester, it should be careful about lecturing anyone on employment rights and protections.
The fourth missing ingredient was the most important issue of all: jobs and job creation in a pandemic and an economic crisis. Today, we know that employers have signed up to offer 120,000 six-month kickstart work placements as soon as it is possible for them to start. Government Departments, such as the Department for International Trade, are on the case too. In a few days, I will host a trade export event in Gloucester to help businesses find new markets, which I hope will lead to new jobs. It is businesses that drive new jobs, as the Secretary of State knows. That is why he is supporting my efforts on promoting more marine energy around our coasts, bringing green energy and sustainable jobs. That is what we need: skills and jobs.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) [V]
Listening to many Opposition Members, I wonder whether they are residing in some kind of alternate universe. The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) gave a wonderfully tub-thumping speech, talking about the Conservative party’s so-called ideological attack on Britain’s workers. The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) claimed the Government are going to strip away the rights of our key workers. What absolute nonsense. Frankly, I find it completely shameful, at a time of national crisis, when our constituents are terrified about losing their livelihoods, when our healthcare staff are battling this virus day and night, and when thousands of volunteers are standing wrapped up against the cold to help roll out the vaccine to keep their parents and grandparents safe, that Labour is once again using an Opposition day motion to spread its mistruths for the sake of a few Twitter likes and to put genuine fear into the very people it claims it wants to protect. It is completely shameful.
I am beyond proud of our country’s record on workers’ rights. Regardless of any referendum fearmongering, it is a record that has never depended on our membership of the EU. In countless instances, we go far beyond the EU: we guarantee five and a half weeks of annual leave compared to the EU’s four; we guarantee 52 weeks of maternity leave, 39 of which are paid, compared to the EU’s meagre guarantee of 14 weeks; we have had guaranteed paternity leave and pay for 20 years, while the EU only introduced it last year; we guarantee the right to request flexible working, which is something that the EU only provides to parents returning from parental leave. I could go on, but I am sure that the House gets the point. Those are just a few quick examples of our excellent record put in an international context.
I was proud to stand on a Conservative manifesto that promised greater protections for workers, including the introduction of a new single body to crack down on any breaches of employment law. Back when I worked in restaurants, I would see examples of breaches, like managers pocketing waiting staff’s tips at the end of the night. That might seem tedious to some who had never had to scrape a living, but those occasions really made a difference—not just to my wages, but to my overall happiness at work. A more streamlined reporting process for breaches of employment law will go a long way to making workers, particularly those in the lowest-paid industries, feel more secure in their jobs. I really look forward to seeing and scrutinising the Government’s plans for this in due course.
I heard the Secretary of State loud and clear earlier when he said unequivocally that we will not reduce workers’ rights. We can waste taxpayers’ money debating motions such as this one that have absolutely no root in reality and will have no impact on policy, or we can focus our efforts on something that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) rightly outlined as being of paramount importance: job creation. We can debate workers’ rights, but I would rather talk about how we keep our workers in work in the first place. This pandemic has had catastrophic impacts on our economy and on jobs. Instead of fearmongering, I call on my Labour colleagues to stand with us in focusing on—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We have to move on. I call Margaret Greenwood.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
I wish to declare an interest as a member of Unite the union.
The recent reports that Ministers stand ready to trash the hard-won rights of working people by ending the 48-hour working week, changing the rules around rest breaks at work and not including overtime pay when calculating some holiday pay entitlements are a sharp reminder of just how important it is to fight to protect employment rights. Vigilance is essential. I hear and note the Secretary of State’s response to those reports, and make it clear to him that we will hold him to account on these issues. I also point out to him just how selective his history of employment rights is. For example, he seems to have overlooked the fact that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), as Trade Secretary, who introduced the national minimum wage in 1997 on behalf of the Labour Government. He also seems to overlook the fierce opposition that that legislation received from Tory MPs, who claimed that the economic damage would be massive, that it was ill conceived, and even that it was immoral—so we will take no lectures from the Secretary of State on that. The national minimum wage came into force in April 1999 as a flagship policy of a Labour Government, and 2 million people got a pay rise overnight.
Research by the TUC has shown that, of around 3,000 people surveyed, 73% believe that the Government must protect and enhance workplace rights such as paid holidays, and rights for temporary and agency workers. I remind Members on the Government Benches that they were elected on a manifesto that promised to legislate to ensure high standards of workers’ rights. Today they must honour that manifesto commitment and vote with the Labour party to protect those rights.
The Government must also put an end to the disgraceful fire and rehire tactics whereby an employer dismisses an employee and then offers to re-engage them on reduced terms and conditions. The practice is nothing short of shameful. It brings insecurity, misery and anxiety to working people and our communities. British Gas is currently in the process of making thousands of employees redundant in this way. A constituent of mine whose husband works for British Gas and is going through this at the moment wrote to me and described his situation as being “held to ransom”. I am concerned about the way in which he is being treated. I am concerned, too, about the treatment of cargo handlers at Heathrow airport by their employer, British Airways, following the airline’s decision to fire and rehire its cargo division’s workforce on inferior pay and conditions. I pay tribute to the GMB, Unite the union and trade unionists everywhere for their tireless work to protect the terms and conditions of working people. It is clear that it is as important today as it has ever been for people to be a member of a trade union.
To conclude, we need a cast-iron guarantee that all existing employment rights will be protected and that the Government will put an end to fire and rehire.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
I would like to declare that I am not a member of Unite or the GMB trade union. When I was elected, I thought I had left the union meetings behind on the railways, but no: today, it feels like I am gate-crashing a 1970s union meeting in the House of Commons, so socialism is definitely alive and well in today’s Labour party.
Here we are again. This is another example of the Labour party, rather than addressing the issues of the day, just wanting to stay wedded to the European Union. The EU position on employment rights is worse than the UK’s by a country mile, yet Labour wants us to be bound to EU standards. Maternity leave is 52 weeks in the UK, compared with just 14 in the EU. Annual leave is 28 days in the UK, compared with just 20 in the EU—I could go on.
We should ask ourselves why the Labour party has really brought this motion before the House today. I think it is because its union paymasters are pulling the strings. The GMB union sent me a briefing last night, so I thought I would do some research into its interest in this debate. That union has filled Labour MPs’ pockets with £360,000 during this Parliament alone, and Unite the union has put £578,000 into the pockets of 61 Labour MPs. These are the unions supposedly fighting for rights, when really all they are doing is funding the Labour party to suppress good, decent, hard-working people from choosing how much they work, earn and save with its proposed 32-hour working week.
This Conservative Government have almost doubled the personal income tax allowance, so a person can earn £12,500 before paying any tax. We have banned exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts. We now have shared parental leave, and we pay to give working parents that flexibility, too. These are signs not of a Government that want to reduce employment rights, but of one who will continue to strengthen them, despite the adversity of the Opposition.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to welcome the new Secretary of State to his role this evening, and it is also good to hear his commitments at the opening of tonight’s debate that the Government have no plans to scrap the 48-hour working week, or any of the other employee entitlements that the UK has now taken back control of. It will be an immense relief to many employees to hear that commitment from the Government at this time of intense anxiety to so many households in this country.
It is not just the extreme precariousness of our current situation that is keeping millions of workers awake at night: it is the future prospects of many industries once the shadow of coronavirus has lifted. Encouraging though the news of the vaccine roll-out is, we all know that the huge disruption of the past year will not miraculously resolve itself overnight. Hundreds of businesses will not survive, despite Government support, and thousands of jobs will disappear. This is why it is so important for the Government to make a clear statement now about valuing our workers, whatever sector they are employed in. We cannot rebuild our economy if workers are employed in low-paid, precarious work. On low wages, there will be no money left over for discretionary spending after people have met the punishingly high cost of housing. Without permanent contracts, workers cannot make long-term plans, whether for holidays or for moving house.
Like the Secretary of State, I have many constituents employed by British Airways who have been threatened with fire and rehire. They will be disappointed tonight not to hear a commitment from the Secretary of State to outlaw this appalling practice. The message this sends is that businesses are more important than people. The role of the Government is to steward an economy that works for everyone; if a business cannot provide a decent standard of living to its workers, it should free up its capital for one that can. I call upon the Government to outlaw fire and rehire at the earliest possible opportunity, to send the clearest signal that this Government value workers. That would give real substance to the claims from Members on the Government side of the House that the UK has the highest standard of working rights in the world, and that leaving the EU does not affect those rights.
Given the length of time between the referendum and the final deal, it remains a source of amazement to me that the Government still struggle to articulate what the benefits of Brexit are, and how they plan to use all this lovely new sovereignty to deliver for the people of the UK. The Government should start this evening by using their new-found powers and committing to outlaw fire and rehire.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) [V]
The Secretary of State has been very clear: we are not going to lower the standards of workers’ rights. There is no plan to do so—there is no doubt in this area—so where is the debate?
We have one of the best workers’ rights records in the world—rights that go much further than the EU’s—and high standards that were never dependent on our membership of the EU. The whole point of leaving the EU and acting as an independent country is that it is now up to the UK Government and elected MPs to decide what rules should apply—rules that work best for the UK, including on policies that strengthen protections for workers. The Government’s 2019 manifesto is clearly committed to raising workers’ rights’ standards. We expect all employers to treat their workers fairly and we condemn strongly the use of fire and hire as a negotiating tactic.
Seizing the new opportunities available to us outside the EU is exactly the reason why we left it. We wanted the flexibility to make our own decisions on how best to uphold our high standards, reinforcing our role as a global leader in areas of labour.
We should not forget that our flexible, dynamic market has increased employment levels. The UK has had the third lowest unemployment rate among the G7, which I am incredibly proud of, having seen unemployment when I was a young adult at its highest.
There was no need for a debate on this issue today. Debates such as these prey on people’s lives for the sole purpose of a social media clip for a political soundbite. We should all be working together and debating together on our plan for jobs and the road to recovery, spreading the good news about the fantastic kickstart scheme getting young people into work, keeping people in jobs, and giving people the confidence that while, yes, this pandemic has ruthlessly undermined both our national and personal economies, there is a route out of it.
This is the Government of the worker, and never more so than now. This is the time to come together for the sake of people’s livelihoods and jobs, and to allow this great and united nation to rise quickly above the mire of devastation the pandemic has inflicted on our jobs, the economy and people’s lives.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) [V]
May I declare an interest as a member of Unite the union, and may I add that I am a very proud socialist?
At the same time that the Tories are clapping our key workers, they are planning to rip up their employment rights, ending the 48-hour working week and removing rest breaks and holiday pay entitlements. This is disgraceful and must be opposed. The Prime Minister’s Brexit withdrawal agreement has left the door open for the UK Government to dismantle workers’ rights, and he seems intent on doing just that.
Here in Wales we are trying to do things differently. In 2017 the Welsh Government passed the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017, which disapplied sections of the UK Trade Union Act 2016, which undermines trade union rights. The Welsh Government Bill on social partnership is important for the fair work agenda and for unions in Wales. This Bill proposes that the Welsh Government, trade unions and employers work together in partnership to address issues affecting the workforce and to safeguard and improve people’s working conditions.
The Welsh Government have also taken some distinct steps during the covid pandemic to safeguard workers’ rights, such as enshrining the 2-metre social distancing guidance in law and the requirement for all private sector businesses receiving covid financial support to sign an economic contract that includes a commitment to a fair work agenda.
But all our good work in Wales is at serious risk as the Tory Government move to centralise power away from people in Wales, which we will do everything to stop. The Brexit deal and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 will drive a race to the bottom. We will fight this, which is why the Welsh Government have rightly stated their intention to take legal action against the UK Government on the Act.
Last week, I met local trade union representatives in my constituency of Cynon Valley. All unions expressed extreme concern about the Government’s current threat to workers’ rights, including Unite with its support for taxi drivers in Wales, and the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union with its struggle on behalf of low-paid McDonald’s employees, along with the Fire Brigades Union, the University and College Union, the National Education Union and most recently the Public and Commercial Services Union in relation to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency situation; all are already engaged in fighting for their members’ safety and job security. I heard powerful and moving stories from GMB members at British Gas about the bullying tactics used to try to force workers to accept reduced terms and conditions, yet there is a solid determination to stand up against these actions by their employers.
Maintaining workers’ rights is not enough. We need to extend them to create a fairer society, including a ban on zero-hour contracts, the introduction of a four-day working week, a minimum income guarantee, and a social security system that provides a genuine safety net for people. As the American black woman activist Angela Davis says:
“I am no longer accepting the things I cannot change. I am changing the things I cannot accept.”
That is the message I want to give to all fellow trade unionists and workers throughout the UK. Diolch yn fawr.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Another week and another attempt by the Opposition to scaremonger and spread fear—time that could have been used in this place to debate how we respond, collectively, to the pandemic and global health crisis, but time yet again wasted on providing social media videos to scare people across the country. It is as if the Labour party has some kind of holy trinity of scaremongering—the NHS, animal welfare and standards, and employment rights—which they attempt to scare people with time and again. It was Einstein who said that the definition of madness was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We saw it in 2010, 2015, the 2016 EU referendum, 2017 and 2019. Again and again, these arguments were deployed across the country and every single time those arguments were rejected roundly by the public.
I genuinely think Labour Members do not understand the British working class anymore. It is because of our NHS, it is because of our standards in animal welfare and food, and because of our employment rights that people are proud to be British. Time and again, at every election and at every opportunity such as today, they see Labour MP after Labour MP talking down this country and its achievements—the very reasons why we are able to stand tall around the world. It is because of the living wage of £10.50 by 2024 that people are proud to be British. It is because of our 28-week sick pay that they are proud to be British. It is because of our 52 weeks maternity leave that they are proud to be British. And it is because of our minimum 28 days annual leave that they are proud to be British.
Every time we hear from Opposition Members, they try to make the same comparisons with the European Union and the ways that British standards are inferior, but it does not take five seconds to Google those comparisons. There is no requirement in the European Union for a living wage. There is no minimum for sick pay. There is 14 weeks compared with our own 52 weeks for maternity leave, and 20 days rather than 28 for minimum annual leave. It is because of this that people do not believe these scaremongering tactics. It is because of this that they dismiss their many Facebook and Twitter videos. When they look at the Labour party, they no longer see a serious alternative Government, because on occasions such as this, when it could step up to the challenge and debate the issues facing this country, it decides—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I call Ian Byrne, to finish at 9.40 pm.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) [V]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thank you to Opposition colleagues for securing this important debate.
I start by saying I am proud member of the GMB and Unite the union. I also declare an interest as I have a brother who is subject to hire and rehire. As mentioned by colleagues this evening, there have been reports that the Government are considering changes to employment rights, which include ending the 48-hour working week, and removing rest breaks and holiday pay entitlements. Workers are keeping our country going under unimaginable pressure, with many of those in the lowest paid sectors, such as care workers, cleaners, delivery drivers and supermarket workers on the frontline. Right now, the Government should be rewarding workers for their heroic efforts to help our communities in this pandemic and not thinking of ways to rip up the rights that protect them both physically and financially. Workers are facing this alongside public sector pay freezes and the proposed cut of £20 a week to universal credit.
The existing employment rights and protections were implemented to protect workers’ mental health and safety, and to ensure they suffer no detriment while taking necessary time off. Even with those rights in place, we know that many employers do not respect them, and the ramifications for workers’ health and safety are huge. The Government cannot level up and tackle the gross inequalities that bedevil our communities if they are engaged in a race to the bottom on employment rights. They should instead focus on improving employment rights and tackling the injustices that workers already faced and continue to face during the pandemic. One such injustice is the unfair dismissal practices used by some app-based courier and private hire companies. The practice of unfair dismissal is leaving many key workers on low incomes facing potential destitution. They urgently need the support of a Government who have so far overlooked their—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am terribly sorry that you had only two minutes, Ian, but I am really pleased that we got you in.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members from all parties who have spoken in this debate. It is important that this debate has taken place.
In particular, on the Opposition Benches I acknowledge my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman); my hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), for Eltham (Clive Efford), for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan); my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell); and my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing North (James Murray), for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), for Luton North (Sarah Owen), for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne). They all spoke, as did a number of Members on the Government Benches, about the real issues that so many workers are facing in the workplace, including during this pandemic. Those issues go to the heart of what this debate is really about: the future of our country and what kind of society we want to build after covid.
We are going through a truly grim experience as a nation, but there will come a time for rebuilding, and we will do that only if we learn the right lessons from the crisis, including about the world of work. Throughout this crisis, we have seen the best of our country—the spirit of coming together in our economy, with business, unions and workers so often working together. That shows the future that we should aim for in industrial relations. I pay tribute to all the key workers who have kept our country going on all our behalf. I also pay tribute to the majority of firms that have looked out for their workers and looked after them, too.
But we have also seen what is wrong: above all, a massive divide of power, class and inequality. To those Members on the Government Benches who asked why we are having this debate, that is the reason: the experience that so many people face in the world of work today. Key workers, who matter the most but are paid the least, have the least job security, and their lives have been most on the line in this crisis. A quarter of the social care workforce is on zero-hours contracts. Nearly three quarters in the private sector are paid less than the living wage. Tragically, we have seen today that these people are among those with the highest death rates from covid.
We have seen the divide between those treated well by good employers and those whose health and lives have been put at risk. There have been 134,000 complaints relating to health and safety at work, but barely 100 enforcement notices. Behind each statistic is a worker and their family, forced into an impossible choice between their health and their job. This is the reality of the world of work today for many people. I say to every right hon. and hon. Member who boasted about how brilliant things are: tell that to the vulnerable workers on the frontline of this crisis. Instead of telling people that they have never had it so good, those Members should be facing that reality.
Tragically, as has been mentioned on both sides of the House, we have seen some employers use the crisis as a smokescreen to lower workers’ terms and conditions. Firms that have seen an opportunity to railroad contract changes through at this most difficult of times include British Airways and British Gas. Those are not isolated examples: a TUC survey released today estimates that a staggering nearly one in 10 workers have been subjected to such degrading tactics.
The divides of class, power and inequality have been acute and at their most extreme during this crisis, but let us acknowledge that they were there before this crisis and will be there after, unless we act. That is the essential context to this debate. The question for this country is which party—which side of the House—will really tackle these issues as we rebuild after covid. The Government would have us believe that it is them—the Secretary of State is nodding—but what do we know?
First, we know—and it was never denied in the debate —that they have spent weeks examining whether to scrap existing workers’ rights. We know that they planned a consultation. We know that they talked to business about it. Indeed, we know from the Secretary of State only last Tuesday at the Select Committee:
“we wanted to look at a whole range of issues relating to our EU membership and examine what we wanted to keep.”
It is pretty clear: they were looking at whether to scrap these rights. The truth is—and, of course, I welcome this—that they have been forced to climb down today because of the outcry, but that does not merit a pat on the back. The very fact that they were considering taking away vital rights, including the 48-hour limit on the working week, from nurses, ambulance drivers, lorry drivers and supermarket delivery drivers speaks volumes.
Secondly, this was not some Whitehall accident; this is what they believe. Let us talk about their record. This is a Government who have cut rights to unfair dismissal, imposed tribunal fees and slashed the Health and Safety Executive’s budget. I know that the Secretary of State is now rather sheepish about it, but he cannot get away from his back catalogue. It was not just one rogue pamphlet, “Britannia Unchained”. It is a systematic set of beliefs. I have been reading up on him. In 2011, after the coalition, he wrote that people should be forced to take out private unemployment insurance; I wonder whether he remembers that one. In “The Innovation Economy” in 2014, he said that Government should exempt new firms from all employment rights for three years. In “A Time for Choosing” in 2015, he specifically targeted the 48-hour week, saying that it costs the economy billions of pounds. And, of course, in the infamous “Britannia Unchained”, he said that British workers were the “worst idlers” in the world.
To paraphrase one of his predecessors, Lord Heseltine, the right hon. Gentleman advocated cutting workers’ rights before breakfast, lunch and dinner and woke up in the morning and wrote another pamphlet advocating the cutting of workers’ rights. And now he expects us to believe that he has had a road to Damascus conversion; he has junked all his previous beliefs. He has gone, if you like, from “Britannia Unchained” to, “Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains”—from blue Kwasi to red Kwasi. How gullible does he think the working people in this country are? All his previous convictions and all his beliefs—he never believed a word of them. Come off it! The truth is that he is caught between what he truly believes, which is what he wrote time after time, and where he knows the British people are. He cannot solve the problems of power, class and inequality in the workplace because it is not what he believes, and it is not what this Government believe.
Thirdly, if this Government really believed in tackling these divides, where are the measures to do so? Take the ability to fire and rehire, which is one of the subjects of the motion. What is their position? They now say that it is unacceptable, so will they promise to legislate tonight? I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response. It is happening now up and down our country; workers are suffering now. I make this offer from the Front Bench—the Opposition Chief Whip is here, and he is nodding: if the Government want to fast-track legislation on this through the House, we will support them. There are loopholes in the law that allow this to happen, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said. I want to know from the Minister: will he commit to legislate—not to think about it, not to consider it, not to wait for ACAS, not to wait for a report, not to have an interdepartmental review, but to act? No more vague promises about the future—this is the No. 1 litmus test of red Kwasi and the new approach that he is promising.
Today we heard lots of vague promises about the future. It is four years since the Taylor review of employment practices, but the key proposals have been left on the shelf. Where are the greater protections for people on zero-hours contracts, consulted upon and promised two years ago? Where are they? It is now two years since the Low Pay Commission recommended that all workers on zero-hours and short contracts should be given new rights to a regular contract and compensation for shift cancellation. It is 18 months—the Secretary of State is new in post, so maybe he can read up on this—since the Government consulted on it. Where is their response? Workers need that protection now. They need it in this crisis. Where are the greater protections for self-employed workers recommended in the Taylor review? Where is the single enforcement body? And where, by the way, is the Employment Bill?
This is the bare minimum that the Government should be doing, and they are dragging their feet. The truth is that they cannot be the architects of the future because they are ideologically stuck in the past. It is the wrong priority for Britain, and it is out of step with workers, businesses and families up and down the country. Good businesses know that inequality, division in our country and injustice are a collective problem to solve. The foundation of modern economic success is decent rights, fairness at work and security for working people.
There are big choices ahead about who we are as a country and how we want to live together. The Government have shown in this debate that they cannot rise to the challenge of building a fairer, more equal country. Our workers deserve better. Our businesses deserve better. Our country deserves better. Tonight, in defence of workers across our country and in the spirit of previous generations that rebuilt after previous crises, we will vote for that fairer country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I thank hon. and right hon. Members for raising many interesting and important points. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) talked about a back catalogue; well, his was laid bare by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) when he talked about the fact that, when the right hon. Gentleman was Leader of the Opposition, the Labour party, which claimed it was a living wage employer, had security staff at its headquarters complaining that they were not even paid the living wage.
What we are doing here, though, is working on workers’ protection for the 21st century. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) and for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) about the challenge of job creation as well as job protection. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) talked about issues of automation. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson) talked about the risks of working from home, saying that if we do not get that right, it is the equivalent of living at work, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood) talked about the monitoring of software where people are working from home. We have heard many powerful and passionate speeches today, and I am grateful to everybody across the House who has contributed.
I will start by reiterating what the Business Secretary said in his opening speech: there will be no reduction in workers’ rights. Let me turn to address some of the important issues. Following our departure from the European Union, the Government are committed to maintaining the existing levels of protection for workers provided by our current laws and regulations. As an independent country, it is right that the UK’s Government and elected MPs can now decide what rules should apply that work best for the UK, including on policies around business growth, innovation, job creation and strengthening protection for workers. That means we can look for improvements where we believe there is a need to do so.
As laid out in our manifesto, we will bring forward legislation that will make workplaces fairer by providing better support for working families and new protections for those in low-paid work, and by encouraging flexible working. We have been clear that there will be no reduction in workers’ rights, and the Business Secretary has reiterated that multiple times. In fact, as we have heard, we have one of the best workers’ rights records in the world.
Our high standards were never dependent on membership of the EU. Indeed, the UK provides for stronger protections for workers than are required by EU law: one of the highest minimum wages in Europe, which will increase again on 1 April; 5.6 weeks of annual leave compared with the EU requirement of four weeks; and a year of maternity leave, with the option to convert to parental leave to enable parents to share care. The EU minimum maternity leave is just 14 weeks. The right to flexible working for all employees was introduced in the UK in the early 2000s, and we will build on that, but the EU agreed rules only recently and will offer the right to parents and carers only. The UK introduced two weeks’ paid paternity leave in 2003; again, the EU has only recently legislated for that.
One of the EU’s own agencies, Eurofound, ranked the UK as the second best country in Europe for workplace wellbeing, behind only Sweden. It is totally disingenuous of the Labour party to claim that we do not stand on the side of the workers, and we will not take lectures from Labour on employment rights. On the Government side of the House, we have a track record of driving up protections for workers. It was a Conservative Government that introduced the national living wage and a Conservative-led Government that banned exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts.
By March last year, workers across the UK had enjoyed 26 consecutive months of real pay increases, and women and workers from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds made up a larger proportion of the workforce than ever before. From the outset of the pandemic, the Government have acted decisively to provide an unprecedented package of support to protect people’s jobs. This is real action to drive up protection for workers, not just political posturing and confected argument, as we have seen from the Labour party today.
It is a sad fact, though, that due to the impacts of covid-19 and despite the support that the Government have put in place, some employers are considering making redundancies on a larger scale. We urge employers to consider all alternatives before making redundancies. However, we recognise that it is not possible to save every business and every job.
The House should be left in no doubt that the Government will always continue to stand behind workers and stamp out unscrupulous practices where they occur. A number of Members here today have made the point that firing and rehiring practices are illegal in some European countries and that we should look to make them illegal in the UK. First, it is important to note that the legal framework relating to employment law in European countries differs from that of the UK, so we cannot compare like for like. Also, in contrast to the more restrictive European frameworks, the UK’s flexible labour markets mean that we intend to enjoy higher employment rates and lower unemployment than countries with more rigid approaches. Before covid struck, the UK unemployment rate was only 4%, compared with the EU27 average of 6.6%. However, in all circumstances, including where employers are contemplating redundancies, we expect employees to be treated fairly and in a spirit of partnership. Laws are in place to ensure that contractual terms and conditions cannot discriminate unlawfully—for example, on grounds of race, sex and disabilities—and we know that most employers will do the right thing. Most employers want to retain their staff, especially as they have invested in training them over a period of time.
As the Business Secretary mentioned in his opening remarks, the Government take seriously reports that threats about firing and rehiring are being used as a negotiating tactic. I myself have condemned it many times in this Chamber. Officials in the Department have engaged ACAS to gather evidence of incidents where fire and rehire has been used. It has approached a wide range of stakeholders such as businesses, employee representatives and other bodies to ensure that we are hearing a range of perspectives. ACAS officials have made good progress in their independent and impartial discussions and are expected to share the evidence gathered with my officials in February this year. We think that this evidence-led approach is the right one for such a sensitive subject.
I want to conclude by reiterating that there will be no reduction in workers’ rights. Our proud track record of strengthening employment rights while maintaining the freedom and flexibility in the labour market that have supported businesses to create jobs and our economy to grow should leave the House in no doubt that we are a party on the side of workers. As laid out in our manifesto, we will bring forward legislation that will make workplaces fairer by providing better support for working families and new protections for those in low-paid work, and by encouraging flexible working. This will balance the needs of employers and workers, ensuring that everybody benefits from flexibility.
As I said earlier, we have seen a confected, manufactured vote to create snippets and clips for social media, which will foment division. This will foment some pretty poisonous things on social media. I make one challenge today. Conservative Members have talked today about 21st-century issues that we need to tackle in terms of workers’ protections. When Members on either side of the House tweet tonight, they can either tweet a clip about this manufactured vote and who has voted for what, after a useful constructive debate, or they can actually save lives and protect employment rights for 6 million people who are suffering from domestic abuse at the moment. Let us tweet about the fact that responsible employers should sign up to the employer initiative on domestic abuse. This is workers’ protection that we can get right tonight and tomorrow morning on social media. From a business point of view, it will help to tackle a £1.9 billion productivity issue, but it is so much more than a business issue when we talk about workers’ protection. It is about people’s lives, people’s mental health and people’s physical health, and we can all do this today. This is worker protection. This is what this side of the House does. It is real, proactive action for people up and down the country. We will not posture; we will act when appropriate.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I put the question, I gently remind the House that if Members shout no, it will be expected that they will not then vote for the motion; indeed, it would be frowned upon if they did so. My hearing is pretty okay, however, and if I hear Members persistently shouting no, a Division will take place. That is what I am anticipating.
Question put.
Business without Debate
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Covid-19: Limited Company Directors
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP) [V]
It is perhaps fitting that tonight’s debate is being held on Burns night, because Robert Burns was a great egalitarian and champion of social justice, and this is an issue that at its heart is about how we treat our fellow citizens. When the Chancellor said that no one would be left behind, it was a comforting show of solidarity to all:
“A Man’s a Man for a’ that”,
as the bard would have said. But it has been over 10 months and the pleas of 3 million people left to struggle have been utterly ignored. It reminds me of another Burns quote:
“Man’s inhumanity to man
Makes countless thousands mourn!”
The reasons for people being excluded have been raised many times in this Chamber, and the case is absolutely clear. How can 10% of the working population simply be dismissed as collateral damage? On what planet does that make sense? We need the excluded, all 3 million of them. They are grafters. They are innovators. They will help to rebuild after the crisis, if we help them now. Instead, they are being ground down by poverty and despair, by a Government who claim to be business friendly.
Tonight the focus is on small limited company directors, but the issue, if not the detail of the solution, applies to all those excluded groups, and I want to emphasise again that no one should be left behind. I note today’s announcement of another proposal by the all-party parliamentary group on gaps in support. The targeted income grant scheme, costed at about £10.5 billion, would provide some support for the newly self-employed, pay-as-you-earn freelancers and taxpayers excluded by the 50:50 rule, as well as limited company directors. I welcome that contribution. After 10 months without any options drafted by the Treasury, it is getting its work done for it by the very people who have been left out, showing just how innovative and determined a group they are. I very much hope that the Treasury will take this proposal seriously and work with the excluded groups to reach solutions, not scramble for excuses to reject them.
About 2 million actively trading limited companies in the UK are micro and small companies. Collectively, they employ 7.5 million people. As the Minister knows, they fall into a separate category from the self-employed and commonly pay themselves a mixture of PAYE and dividends when their company has a profit. Many company directors found themselves unable to furlough because it would prevent them from working, which might mean the demise of the business. Some were actively excluded due to running an annual payroll with an RTI submission date after 19 March. For those who could furlough, the payments were often too low to live on because they are based solely on PAYE earnings. Many firms missed out on grants, particularly if they had no commercial premises, and discretionary grants can be a postcode lottery.
Ministers have been told time and time again of people’s plight by MPs of all political persuasions, by campaigners and by those who have first-hand experience of the difficulties. If I thought it would help, I would read out some of the heartbreaking stories I have heard, not only from my constituents here in Midlothian, but from all corners of the UK, but so far those real-life stories have bounced like water off a duck’s back. Yet despite the Treasury’s intransigence, this issue is not going away any time soon.
A parliamentary petition calling for support for limited company directors gained more than 101,000 signatures before it closed in October. Many could be watching tonight and praying that the Government do not simply trot out more irrelevant excuses for inaction. I am hoping that there will be something more solid, so I can take away more than the usual promises to listen that come to nothing. It is not enough for the Minister to tell us about what the Government have done for the self-employed or others lucky enough not to fall through the gaps. Talking of support for others suggests a continued denial of reality for those excluded and simply rubs salt in their wounds, emphasising the lack of parity and fairness.
While we are at it, let us dispel some of the myths that have been brandished to excuse inaction. Directors of small limited companies are not fat cats or wealthy tax dodgers; they have small and family businesses. Any tax advantage in partly paying through dividends was dampened long ago. Almost 1 million of this group have only a sole director, be they electricians, beauticians, shop owners or IT professionals. I also note the work of We Make Events to highlight the impact that excluding directors has had on the doubly hit events industry.
People are angry, frustrated and in despair, but we are past the time to plead the case. If the Government do not care about the human cost, perhaps warnings of the economic cost will finally cut through. It is the endgame for many businesses, and cleaning up the mess later will be far more costly than providing support now to prevent them from falling off the cliff. There are 7.6 million jobs reliant on those businesses. Many of the directors are surviving only through spiralling mountains of debt. If they go down, there will be no place for staff to go back to when furlough ends. The small-scale entrepreneurs and wealth-makers we need to lift the UK economy will, instead, be left to wither on a shrinking vine, while an unemployment cliff edge approaches.
The Treasury has had plenty of time to find a solution for all 3 million excluded, and it remains its job and its duty to do so. It has been given a head start by the worked-up proposal for a directors income support scheme—as well as the TIGS proposal I mentioned earlier—which was designed by a coalition of small business leaders, tax experts and company directors, including ForgottenLtd, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, the Federation of Small Businesses and Rebecca Seeley Harris of Re:Legal Consulting. It is not a fix for everyone, but it is a viable solution that would help many, and I would very much welcome support of any kind.
The DISS proposal has also received overwhelming cross-party endorsement from the gaps in support all-party group, and I am limiting my own contribution tonight to hear from a couple of colleagues on that point. I understand that the Treasury has had the proposal on its desk for six weeks now, and only just gave a full response on Friday. I know that those who worked on the proposal will want to go through the Treasury’s points fully. Indeed, they would no doubt welcome a meeting to address any concerns expressed.
I understand that there are continued concerns that the scheme is open to fraud, which seem to me misplaced at best, or exaggerated, particularly given the more gung-ho approach of this Government to so many other emergency schemes and contracts. Every scheme has a risk, of course, and it is right to minimise that risk, but it is not a reason to do nothing, as with so many previous schemes. In fact, the DISS’s very design tackles such concerns head-on.
The assumption is that the DISS will run on the same parameters as the self-employment income support scheme. It will rely not on dividends but on a company’s trading profits, which are contained in the corporation tax return, and because directors are under a strict legal obligation to provide accurate information when self-certifying, the scheme has a far higher bar to prevent fraud than many other existing schemes. It has also addressed concerns about administrative burdens, it deliberately mirrors an existing, working scheme, and it uses systems already in place and operated by the Treasury and HMRC. If the Government are still not persuaded of its merits, will the Minister pledge tonight at least to hold discussions with ForgottenLtd and other stakeholders to allow them to raise their concerns and to work together to find solutions? If there are ongoing issues, I would urge the Government not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Should the Government finally decide to act, let me be clear that no one scheme should be seen as a silver bullet, but simply as a first step in the right direction. Campaigning will not stop until all excluded groups receive parity. Above all else, this is fundamentally a moral issue. These people deserve to be supported in the same way that the Government have supported others—nothing more, nothing less. Nothing can justify their lives being shattered by mere technicalities. There has been no wrongdoing, and people are being punished for merely following practices set out in the Government’s own recommendations.
With that in mind, the Government’s sluggish response is almost incomprehensible. At first, the Chancellor had the nerve to paint limited company directors as fat cats not in need of support. Then the Treasury spent months scrambling for technocratic excuses not to take action. Now, thanks to the work of campaign groups and MPs, the Treasury has seen two proposals that would take the first steps towards plugging some of these gaps, while relying on the same infrastructure as other, existing schemes. There are no longer any excuses for the Government not to act. A failure to do so would simply confirm the worst fears of many—that this Government simply do not care and are willing to exclude limited company directors as a deliberate policy choice. That, quite simply, is not something that I or other hon. Members could stand by and watch.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now go to Brighton for a short contribution by video link from a Member who has the consent of the Member initiating the debate, Owen Thompson, the consent of the Minister, Jesse Norman, and the permission of the Chair, myself, to participate in the debate.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am hugely grateful to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for allowing me to say a few words in this vital debate, and I congratulate him on his powerful words.
The Minister has engaged with me on a number of occasions about support for small limited company directors, and he can be in no doubt about my concerns, but I am pleased to have this opportunity to stress three points to him again. First, I want to check that he, the Chancellor and Treasury officials fully understand that the DISS proposal does not use dividend payments as the basis for calculating a suitable level of income support for directors. It very deliberately avoids doing that, and is based instead on CT600 taxable profits.
Secondly, as Northern Ireland has managed to develop a scheme that meets its—presumably—equally high standards on avoiding fraud, can the Minister tell us why it has been so difficult for the Treasury to achieve that? Will he take this opportunity to correct the impression that directors of limited companies are somehow less trustworthy than others who have benefited from Government support?
My third point is simply to ask whether, if the DISS does not meet with Treasury approval, the Minister will commit to coming up with something that does. I am running out of ways of explaining that some directors of small limited companies have received nothing in income support from his Government since March last year, and they are desperate. As well as the DISS proposal, he has other options that have been put to him. It is his responsibility to actively continue to engage with those affected and to find a solution.
The speed with which the Treasury developed emergency support schemes is warmly appreciated, but that does not excuse the gaps, and certainly not the fact that those gaps still exist. Company directors are being made destitute because the coronavirus job retention scheme for income taken via PAYE, as well as bounce back loans, rental support, increased levels of universal credit and other business support grants, all exclude them. Mortgage holidays are also on that list, which is especially hard to stomach for directors who are now forced to sell their homes to try to save their businesses. I hope that the Minister and his Department will finally grasp that hiding from reality does not change it. His Government are responsible for dangerous levels of despair and desperation. Up to 7.5 million UK jobs are reliant on small limited companies. If the DISS is not the right scheme, then the Treasury needs to urgently come up with an alternative, because it is both economically illiterate and morally untenable to leave these people with no liveable income.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) on securing this debate, on his contribution, and on his tenacity and commitment in persisting with a debate on Burns night, when I am sure he has plenty of other distractions. I also thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for her contribution.
Let me start by assuring colleagues across the House that I absolutely recognise the difficulties faced by their constituents, and constituents across the country of MPs from every political party, who are company directors. However, as colleagues will no doubt be aware, this is not a simple matter to resolve, for reasons that I will outline.
More widely, I think colleagues will be aware of the support that the Government have provided to individuals and businesses throughout the pandemic and the guiding principles behind how that money has been distributed. At every stage of the crisis, we have sought to support as many people and businesses as we can as rapidly as possible. To that end, we have provided a wide-ranging package of financial support worth some £280 billion. Its measures include, notably, the furlough scheme, which has protected the jobs of almost 10 million workers, while the self-employment income support scheme has so far provided grants to almost 3 million people. Let me remind the House that those ineligible for assistance from one scheme may still be able to receive help from one of the many other sources of support that are in place. Businesses may be eligible for loans and cash grants, along with tax cuts and deferrals for firms in sectors that have been hardest hit by the pandemic. We are also providing extra help to the families and individuals worst affected by this crisis with a wide-ranging package of welfare measures worth over £7 billion.
The furlough and self-employment schemes have been designed with two overriding principles in mind: the need to target support at those who need it most, and the need to safeguard taxpayer funds against fraud, error and abuse. As the hon. Member for Midlothian has recognised, it is an obligation—a duty—on the Government to keep fraud, error and abuse to a minimum, and that is what we have sought to do. This approach has meant that the vast majority of those who have requested help have been able to obtain it, while the taxpayer has been protected.
But it is important to say that the Government recognise that some people do not qualify for either support scheme, and this group includes some company directors. Let me turn to the specific situation facing this group. Directors who pay themselves a salary through a PAYE scheme are eligible for the coronavirus job retention scheme—that is, the furlough scheme. However, as Members will be aware, and as the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, many directors pay themselves in large part through dividends while taking a small salary. Directors can claim from the furlough scheme on their salary, but dividends are not covered by this scheme, nor by the self-employment income support scheme. This is because income from dividends is a return on investment in the company rather than wages. Under HMRC’s current reporting mechanisms, which it inherited from many years before this pandemic crisis struck us, and which have been designed to meet the needs of a tax system operating in normal times, it is not possible to distinguish between dividends derived from an individual’s own company and dividends from other sources.
According to some external estimates, there are just over 700,000 active company directors, so if HMRC was to provide financial support to the 3.3 million people who typically declare dividend income on their tax returns, more than three quarters of those grants could potentially go to unintended recipients. This would be an irresponsible and unfair use of taxpayer money. By the same token, to seek to identify directors by means of proxies and assumptions would be an extremely onerous, imperfect and almost certainly inequitable method.
The Government continue to work closely with a range of organisations to explore how these schemes can support directors better, as well as others who have found themselves ineligible for the main income support schemes. It is quite wrong to suggest that we have not engaged. Indeed, we welcome any proposal that constructively seeks to address gaps in support that may exist, but as we consider these options it is vital that we always bear in mind the need to protect taxpayers from fraud and abuse, which can escalate very rapidly once it is allowed to creep into the system.
Throughout the past few months, I and my colleagues in the Treasury have been exploring proposals from some of these organisations to see whether they can provide a viable solution to the gaps in coverage and, in particular, the issue facing directors. As has been mentioned by both hon. Members, these include the directors income support scheme, which has been suggested by the Federation of Small Businesses and others. I am very grateful for the care and support that have gone into drawing up the proposal and ask the House to recognise that we take it extremely seriously. I have met its supporters. I and my officials have had detailed conversations about the scheme and have sought further information and ideas on critical areas and potential concerns. This continuing engagement has taken some weeks. At this time, however, although I and my officials by no means rely on the suggestion that the scheme intrinsically involves dividends—we recognise the construction of the scheme and the structure it represents; dividends are a means by which directors can be paid, but they are not intrinsic to the approach being taken in the scheme—I and my officials do not believe that as framed it overcomes the fundamental issues of protecting taxpayers’ money and safeguarding it against fraud and abuse.
I have raised those concerns with the FSB and the other members of the DISS group, and I and Treasury officials remain ready to engage with them on the issue. In addition, as the hon. Members mentioned, my team is reviewing the targeted income grant support just received, as proposed by the gaps in support all-party parliamentary group. As I have said, we very much remain open to other constructive suggestions.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion asked what was happening with Northern Ireland and whether the Government regarded the directors of small companies as less trustworthy than others. The answer to the latter question is of course not. We make no judgment about trustworthiness. This is a structural feature of concern about the nature of the support we seek to offer and how this particular scheme addresses that concern. As for her question about Northern Ireland, I cannot comment on that. The scheme has been proposed by Invest Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland Executive and, as far as I am aware, it is not in any way connected to the HMRC scheme. We look to see how it will work and how it will address the needs that might exist and the concerns that might arise. We are not in a position to replicate the scheme in England and Wales, for the reasons I have described.
As this crisis has evolved, we have continued to adapt and refine the targeting of our support so that it can reach more people. Let me reiterate that our guiding principle has been to help as many people and businesses as possible through the pandemic. We have protected the livelihoods of many millions of people around the country and provided vital support to those who require it most.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We have all had to adapt during the covid pandemic, and tonight may well be a piece of history in that the entirety of a debate has been held in the Chamber of the House of Commons when none of the participants were present. That is quite incredible. I thank the half a dozen people who kept me company for the last half hour, which was amazing. Happy Burns night. I suspect that quite a few drams will be drunk virtually this evening, if not virtually drunk. None the less, happy Burns night everybody.
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) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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 |
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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 |
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
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 |
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
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) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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 |
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
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) | Mark Tami |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Tami (Ogmore) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
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) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
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 |
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) | Mark Tami |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (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) | Mark Tami |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (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) | Mark Tami |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
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) | Mark Tami |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
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) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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 |
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (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) | Mark Tami |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
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) | Mark Tami |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 1654).
It is a pleasure, Mr Pritchard, to serve under your chairmanship on one of these Committees—for, I think, the first time. At the outset, I pay tribute once again— as the shadow Minister does each time we have these debates—to the work of our health and social care staff and key workers in this country, who continue, day in, day out, to keep people safe, and to keep this country working. They are clearly, for these reasons, the pride of our nation. I also put on the record my thanks to the population of this country for continuing to follow the lockdown rules. We all know that is incredibly difficult and entails huge sacrifice, but the actions everyone is taking are protecting our NHS, buying time for the roll-out of the vaccine, and saving lives.
While our focus remains on vaccine roll-out and the necessary national lockdown, to keep down infection and hospitalisation levels, it is nonetheless important that we bring forward these regulations, even though they make by and large only minor technical amendments to the “All Tiers” regulations, necessary for legal coherence. Those regulations give effect to the 29 December tiering decisions, which of course have been superseded by the national lockdown restrictions, but it is still right that they be debated in this place. To briefly run through the effects of this statutory instrument, it amends regulation 8(4)(b) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020, substituting
“the Tier 2 area and the Tier 3 area”
with
“the Tier 2 area, the Tier 3 area and the Tier 4 area”,
to ensure that the addition of tier 4 is captured. That essentially makes it clear that tier 1 covers every area of England other than those areas in tiers 2, 3 and 4, and therefore that tier 4 restrictions apply only in a tier 4 area. That, of course, is now the whole of England, following the Prime Minister’s announcement of a national lockdown on 4 January. This might seem like nit-picking or a minor clarification, but we feel it is important to remove any scope for misinterpretation from the instrument.
The instrument also makes a further technical amendment to the “All Tiers” regulations, correcting a cross-reference in paragraph 8 of schedule 3A to the “All Tiers” regulations. The larger change in this instrument is the amendment of schedule 4 to the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020 to move some local authority areas from tiers 2 and 3 to tiers 3 and 4, although those changes have been superseded by the national move to tier 4.
Given the rapid rise in covid cases in several areas at the time these decisions were made, and the likely progression of the new variant, it was agreed on 29 December 2020 to move these local authority areas between the tiers. Decisions on which tier would apply to each area were initially announced on 2 December, and were based on five key indicators: case detection rates in all age groups; case detection rates in the over-60s; the rate at which cases were rising or falling; the positivity rates—the number of positive cases detected as a percentage of tests taken—and, of course, pressure on the NHS in a particular area, including current and projected occupancy.
Before concluding, I put on the record our regret that the regulations could not be debated until now; obviously, the House did not sit until 11 January. Two weeks after the House came back, we have brought them forward. That is swift, but still, I apologise to the House and to my shadow, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, for the fact that we did not have the opportunity to bring them forward for debate in a more timely fashion. None the less, we feel it is important—indeed, it is required—that we bring them forward at this point for the House to scrutinise and challenge them if it wishes.
Furthermore, we may decide to step areas down through the tiers when it is possible to revert to that approach. Therefore, for consistency in the law and confidence in the tiering system, it is right that these technical amendments and tier allocations be considered.
We should remain cautious about the timetable ahead. If our understanding of the virus does not change dramatically, roll-out of the vaccine continues to be successful, deaths start to fall as the vaccine takes effect, the covid situation in our hospitals improves and everyone plays their part by following the rules, we hope—at the right time, when it is safe to do so—to be able to move out of the national restrictions.
I finish by paying tribute once again to our amazing health and social care staff, who are working tirelessly throughout this pandemic. As always, I remind everyone of the importance of following the rules, which are in place for very good reason, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard —for, I think, the first time, as the Minister said. I declare an interest, in that my wife is a member of Cheshire West and Chester Council, one of the local authorities mentioned in the regulations; I do not think that requires any further expansion, but it needs to be stated for the record.
I thank the Minister for his introduction, and his acknowledgment of the issue to do with the timing of these regulations—a matter that we have debated on many occasions over the past 12 months. I echo his tribute to NHS and social care staff, and indeed all key workers, who continue to do this country proud and see us through this incredibly difficult time.
As we debate these regulations, we must recognise the scale of the challenge we still face. The situation is as serious as it has ever been. We have lost 98,000 people so far to the virus; as we know, the Office for National Statistics shows more than 110,000 excess deaths; and as of yesterday, there were 38,000 people in hospital, some 4,000 of them on ventilation. Those figures are significantly higher than those in the height of the first wave of the pandemic. The climbing, record death rate is a tragic reminder of how devastating the virus is, and behind every statistic is a grieving family. We must therefore leave no stone unturned in our efforts to prevent further loss.
We have come together to discuss these regulations, following their introduction on 30 December, even though, as the Minister says, they have largely been superseded by the national lockdown. As I have said many times, retrospectively approving legislation—in particular, regulations that have a dramatic impact on individual liberty, as well as an economic impact, which we have discussed many times—is no way to go about things.
I will not labour the point, because it has been made many times, but it is worth noting that on the day these regulations were introduced, the House was already debating a number of previous instruments, most of which were also significantly out of date. I know this is a rapidly changing situation, and in December things perhaps changed more quickly than at most other times, but is there any particular reason why these regulations could not have been dealt with at the same time as those others debated on 30 December?
As we heard, today’s instrument amends the “All Tiers” regulations for the fourth time—quite a record, given the latest tier system was in place for one month. Even though we are again in lockdown, as the Minister has said, we will be moving back to a tiered system as restrictions are eased, so it is important that we review the effectiveness of the tiered system when looking at this instrument. Given that the past two attempts at a tiered system ended in lockdowns within a matter of weeks, we need to be confident, and to hear from the Minister about his confidence, that the situation will not repeat itself.
Although whether the tiers proved effective is of fundamental concern, there is little evidence to date to suggest that, on the whole, most of them were working. Another problem with the regulations, and all the regulations that we have dealt with on this matter, is that we are presented with a list of places, which tells us who can do what and where they can do it, but does not tell us why. Of course, at a macro level, we know why, but what we are missing is why one area is in one tier and another area is in another.
We know what the Secretary of State told us about the criteria, which the Minister repeated today, and they are set out in the explanatory memorandum, but they have never been explicitly spelled out in the regulations. Nor, crucially, is there any detail on the point at which those criteria take us from one tier to another. No doubt the Minister will say that it is not as black and white as that, and I am sure that there is some merit in that answer, but there has to be some yardstick and some analysis of the data that matters; otherwise, the process would be entirely random, which it clearly is not.
Although most of that information is publicly available, it is disparate and often not released at the same time. What would make debates such as today’s rather more meaningful is if there were full disclosure of all the information at the time the decisions were made, and the debates took place at the time of those decisions, so that Members on both sides of the room could say to their constituents that there was clarity, and could say that the reason why one area was in one tier and another was in another was debated when the regulations were introduced.
That is particularly relevant to today’s regulations, as it seems that the primary reason for areas moving up tiers this time probably relates to only one of the criteria: NHS occupancy and projected occupancy. That is apparent to us all now, given the figures that we have alluded to, but it probably was not as clear to everyone at the time the regulations were introduced. Moving forward, I ask the Government to, as far as possible, set out in the regulations the data applicable to each area, so that we can objectively judge, when the regulations are introduced and debated, whether the Government have got it right. I think that is what all Members want.
I understand that the measures are presented on a “take it or leave it” basis, and that sometimes events mean that scrutiny lags behind the original decisions, but that should be a reason for more transparency and more debate—not for simply providing us with a list of councils that are moving tiers. The regulations are all concerned with moving areas up to higher tiers, rather than down, albeit for a matter of days before the next lockdown came in. We therefore need to ask, irrespective of whether there is a new variant, whether the tiers have ever been, or will be, effective.
We have asked time and again for the Government to provide us with evidence of what measures work. Some areas have been in a form of lockdown since last summer, as the Minister is well aware from his constituency. There has been plenty of time to gather data on the subject, even if it is to conclude that local restrictions are insufficient. As the Minister will know, last year the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also highlighted a need for that information to be public, reminding the Government that it is customary, when a scheme is changed after it has been operating for a while, to explain what has worked well and what has been amended because the performance has not always achieved the desired effect.
The Liverpool city region is often cited as an example of an area in the then highest tier—tier 3—where there was a successful attempt to reduce transmission. That was largely attributed to the mass testing regime undertaken there, but infection levels were dropping before that scheme was introduced, and it relied on significant input from the Army that I do not think it would be physically possible to replicate elsewhere. Is that the plan, moving forward, for the highest tiers? We need realistic and resourced plans for such areas because, the tier system having effectively collapsed over Christmas and the new year, people need confidence that any new tier system will work, and that infection rates will not spiral out of control again.
I am sure that the Minister agrees that this lockdown needs to be the last. The Government need to demonstrate that they finally have a grip on localised restrictions that not only enables areas to reduce transmission, but gives areas with low transmission rates the tools to keep them low. To date, that has palpably not been the case. We will not oppose today’s regulations, but we need assurances that when we return to another system of tiers once we exit the national lockdown, they will finally work. We must see, in real time and in full, the advice that the Secretary of State and the Government receive from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies on the restrictions needed before we are asked to make judgments on those decisions.
Thus far, we have seen a tragic failure by the Government to learn from mistakes. That must now change. We must not repeat that with the roll-out of the vaccine. It is widely acknowledged that that is our only way out of this situation. The task is clear. The Government must deliver the vaccine quickly and as safely as possible. We want to see round-the-clock vaccine programmes, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in every village, town, high street, GP surgery and pharmacy—everywhere possible that we can use to roll out the vaccine.
That goes hand in hand with measures to supress the virus. Not everyone can work at home or comfortably isolate themselves. The system still expects families to go hungry to stop spreading the infection. Again, I urge the Government to fix sick pay and ensure everyone is supported to self-isolate. The Health Secretary, as was mentioned many times, has admitted that he could not live on statutory sick pay, but that is what we still expect hundreds of thousands of people to do each week.
The Government have known for many months that rates of self-isolation compliance are low. That is the gaping hole in the system. I was disappointed that rumours at the end of last week that the Government were due to extend the scope of the £500 self-isolation payment were just that: rumours. I urge the Government to consider extending the payment to all low-income parents self-isolating with children, and to ensure that councils can give discretionary payments to all who need them. When even Baroness Harding recognises that this is a big flaw in the Government’s approach, we need to act.
We know how difficult this lockdown is for millions of families. We are being asked to stay at home for a third time, to help get the virus under control. In return, the Government must not only deliver the vaccine, but ensure that people can self-isolate when required to. The decisions made will be significantly influenced by how quickly people can be vaccinated. Of course, we want roll-out to proceed as soon as possible. Being the first country to approve the vaccine, we should be the first country to roll it out successfully.
I hope that in his closing remarks, the Minister will update us on how the Government plan to reach those communities that are hard to reach. We know that the crisis has had a disproportionate impact on black, Asian and ethnic minority communities, so it is important that the vaccine roll-out does not leave those communities behind. We need to understand how the roll-out relates to the implementation and continuation of the tier system. The Secretary of State has said of easing lockdown measures that there will need to be no more major new variants of covid-19, that hospitalisations must fall, that the daily death rates must fall, and that the vaccination programme should work.
On new variants, the need to secure our borders is clear. I suspect decisions of that nature are above the Minister’s pay grade, though maybe not for long; who knows? Perhaps one day. I hope he will convey our concerns about the daily scenes at our airports, and about the clear need for more robust systems. Lockdown, with the incredible sacrifice that it involves, is a decision that I know weighs heavily on every Member, but to ask our citizens to submit to that while, because of holes in our defences, people enter the country and potentially spread new, dangerous variants is unforgivable. That must be addressed as a matter of urgency.
Two of the criteria are the same as those in the tier system. I want to raise a few points about the vaccination process and how that will relate to the tier system. It seems, as a matter of logic, that if these criteria apply to the lockdown, they will also apply to the tier system. This is the one thing that the Government can control and direct, so it is important that we have transparency about how this will happen
We know how many people daily, by region, receive their first and second dose of vaccine. Those figures are now further broken down to those for each sustainability and transformation partnership footprint, but that does not give us the data that we need to identify whether progress is even, or how that will impact tier systems. For example, the latest data, up to 17 January 2021, tells us that 114,000 people over 80 have received the first dose of the vaccine in Cumbria and the north-east. That is undoubtedly good news, but we do not know the proportion of over-80s, or how those people are spread across the region. Are some parts of the region doing better than others?
I hope the Minister accepts that the public are getting only a partial picture. Moving forward, as we look to adjust the tiers, I suggest that that information needs to be disseminated at local authority level, consistent with the tiers contained within these regulations. For example, Cumbria County Council is described in the regulations as being in the north-west, but in terms of the vaccination process it is in the north-east. We also need to know what percentage of each vulnerable category has been vaccinated and, crucially, how much vaccine has been supplied to each local authority area, ideally expressed as a proportion of the total vulnerable categories.
To date, despite questioning on the subject, we have no specific information about how much vaccine has been supplied to each area. We are only getting information about when it has reached the arm of the patient. That is the most important data, but if one of the criteria used to allocate tiers is progress with the roll-out, we will need to know if there is equity in supply as well. I am sure the Minister will not want to end up in arguments about whether tiers are being decided on the basis of whether the vaccine has been fairly distributed. In the spirit of being helpful, I suggest to him that the best way to avoid getting into those arguments is through total transparency on the numbers and proportions distributed to each area.
Finally, there has been a lot of debate today about schools and the continuing uncertainty about when they may be able to reopen. I am sure we all share the same aim and we want them fully reopened as soon as possible. That begs the question about the possibility that education settings could be treated differently, depending on which tier they are in. Is that being looked at on an area by area basis? There was a spike in September when schools and universities returned. Can that be better contained by more localised decision making in the new tier system?
In conclusion, we believe that there is an awful lot more to be done to demonstrate that tiers are effective, that areas are placed in tiers on a transparent basis, that areas are given sufficient support to reduce transmission of the virus or to prevent it from increasing, and that there is sufficient support for business, recognising that each tier brings with it a different set of challenges, both trading within the tier or having to close the business altogether.
Edward Argar
I will endeavour to address the various points raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. It is a pleasure to serve opposite him in these Committees. He is always measured in his remarks and constructive in the points that he makes. Even when disagree on interpretation, I always welcome his observations and his reasoned challenges.
When the hon. Gentleman mentioned the work that his wife is doing as a local councillor, he kindly did not mention that when paying tribute to our health, social care and key workers, I missed our local authorities. I pay tribute to the officers of those local authorities and to local councillors, who always work very hard but who will be facing an incredibly heavy workload at the moment, serving their communities. In that vein, I pay tribute to them, including the hon. Gentleman’s wife for her work.
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the scale of the challenge and the situation that we face, and the number of tragic deaths we have seen. As he rightly said, every one of those is an individual with family and friends, and every one of those deaths is a tragedy. He highlighted that there are 38,000 covid patients hospitalised at the moment, which is well over a third of the beds in our NHS. To demonstrate how rapidly that number has climbed, back in September there were 500 people hospitalised with covid; in October, the number went up to about 2,000; by November, it was 11,000; and, in the past month and a half, we have seen it go up to the current level. The rate of hospitalisation has increased dramatically and he is right to highlight that backdrop to our debate.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned retrospectivity, not in the implementation of the regulations, but in debating them after the for. While that may be in line with what is permitted under parliamentary procedure with statutory instruments of this sort, I take his point that it is better to debate them in a timely fashion, That is what we seek to do, because the House can give its view on them and because the transparent process helps to achieve consent to, and therefore compliance with, the measures. I hope the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that we have made some significant strides since—well, not since this time last year, but since last spring, now that the House has found a way of speeding up the pace at which we bring statutory instruments before Committees.
The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about statutory instruments being made on 30 December, a day when the House was sitting. The short answer to his question why they could not be debated that day is because they were only signed and made by the Secretary of State on that day, while the House was sitting, so there was no time to lay them or schedule them for debate. That is why we have brought them forward now, although of course events have slightly superseded them.
On tiering and the effect of tiering, which was the subject of a large part of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, I have to be very honest. Throughout this pandemic, we have said, “Here is what we are working to achieve, but even now this disease is something that we are still learning more about every day.” The perfectly reasonable and scientifically rational tiering restrictions and regulations in December having to be superseded this month is in large part due to the new variant, with its significantly higher infectiousness. It was not present when the original tiering regulations were put in place. There will always be an element of having to adapt to this disease as the disease itself adapts.
The hon. Gentleman asked what determines whether an area is in a particular tier and how it can move between tiers, and he quite rightly picked up on the five tests, or the five measures, that the Secretary of State has set out. Sadly, he was right to predict that I would say the process is not black and white and is more complex than that. That is because it is the inter-relationship between the factors that matters. For example, the infection rate overall could appear to be plateauing and then coming down, as was the case for a period in my own constituency, while the rate in the over-60s continues to grow. That is a great concern because of the impact of this disease on that age group, and on older people in general,. I fear that it will not be possible to say, “Here is an exact figure for each of these, and if you hit these figures, that moves you from x to y.” A more nuanced and more complex judgment is required
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the importance of data and in particular dashboard data at a localised level, so that people can at least understand the data that is driving these decisions. I hosted a call with colleagues back in December, when we had some of our team in DHSC talk through how we were developing that data dashboard, looking at the data and then subsequently providing ever greater granularity. That work continues and he is absolutely right to highlight it. I suspect that there will always be an appetite for data that we are continuing to chase and trying to keep up with, but we continue to try to put more and more data out. I would argue that, as a country, we have been at the forefront of data transparency and putting information out there. There is always more that we can do, but compared with other countries, on testing rates for example, we were at the forefront of putting data out there, even when that was quite rightly being challenged or questioned by him and by others.
We publish the SAGE papers, but I think what the hon. Gentleman was asking me to pass on to the Secretary of State was a request that those papers are not only published, but published in tandem with recommendations and decisions. I will certainly convey his points to the Secretary of State, as I will to the Transport Secretary. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that those points are above my pay grade in this role, as they relate to borders and travel.
There are three other things that I will touch on very briefly, which I think will cover what the hon. Gentleman asked about: vaccine roll-out, compliance, which he touched on, and bigger-picture elements about when we are likely to see an easing, for want of a better way of putting it, which is the road map argument, including schools as a pathway. I will try to address some of those issues, albeit briefly.
On the vaccine, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we believe, and it has always been part of our strategy, that the vaccine is our way out of this pandemic. It must be delivered quickly and safely, as he said, and I believe that it is being delivered very swiftly and safely across the country, not just by our NHS and our military, but by volunteers who are helping to run the vaccination centres. The huge number of vaccinations that have already taken place is testament to the planning and the work that has been done. As the Secretary of State has always made clear, although we are getting a huge number of people vaccinated, supply is potentially a limiting factor. We will vaccinate as many people as we can get the vaccines for, but there will always be a potential limiting factor there.
On compliance, the hon. Gentleman raised a number of points. The population of this country has been phenomenal in its willingness to comply with incredibly onerous and challenging restrictions. He highlighted support from the Department for Work and Pensions and elsewhere for particular groups, including statutory sick pay and other isolation payments. The Government continue to keep compliance rates and the factors that influence them under review.
The hon. Gentleman’s final question, which is a subject of considerable discussion at the moment, was about the road map for the easing of the national lockdown and how it interacts with the vaccine roll-out. I am afraid that I have to disappoint him slightly. To echo what the Prime Minister said, we all know what we would like to see, and the number of people vaccinated, particularly those in the vulnerable groups, is a key element not just of keeping people safe and being able to ease restrictions, but of decreasing the pressure on the NHS. However, we also know that there is a long lag time between people being infected and then going into hospital and being kept there. Thankfully, with new drugs, we are able to save the lives of people who might have died in the first wave, but they are in hospital longer, so the pressure on NHS capacity will continue for some time.
It would be wrong to set an arbitrary road map and timetable when, as I say, we are constantly learning more about how this disease behaves and moves in the population. We can set out our ambitions in broad terms, but it would not be right to say, “If we hit x number, that equals x date, which equals x change.” It would be premature to do that. It is right that we are open and transparent with the British people, but we are not at that point yet.
Justin Madders
I pay tribute to all those involved in the vaccine roll-out. I had the pleasure of visiting my local centre a couple of weeks ago, and it was very well organised. I was trying to gain some understanding from the Minister about whether the vaccine roll-out will be applied to tier decisions, or whether the national picture will be part of the decision. I do not expect him to say, “This number of people receiving a dose is going to mean x, y or z relaxations,” but will that be considered at national or local level?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his clarification. If I am being honest, I think it is probably premature at this point for us to speculate about things at that level of detail, but he makes his point well and it is on the record. I will relay it to the Secretary of State as we look at when the time is right for us to start easing the national regulations and potentially move towards a tiering model again. At that point, those sorts of question are of course pertinent, and I will ensure that the Secretary of State is aware of the hon. Gentleman’s comments.
The hon. Gentleman’s final point was, in the context of vaccines, infection rates and hospital pressure, about the need for information to be as local and granular as we can get it. Vaccinations started in earnest in early to mid-December, and we have ramped up at a huge rate the number of people being vaccinated each day. In parallel with that, we have continued to try to increase the amount and granularity of information that we publish on gov.uk and on the dashboard about vaccinations by region, area and volume. In parallel with actually getting the vaccine in people’s arms, the team continues to look at what more they can do to be as transparent as possible about how that is going, so that people in a local area can understand a bit more about what it means for them.
I hope I have addressed if not all then as many as I can recall of the hon. Gentleman’s questions and points. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 1654).
DRIVERS' HOURS AND TACHOGRAPHS (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in the places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee, except when Members are speaking. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. I call the Minister to move the motion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1658) (S.I., 2020, No. 1658).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Following the UK’s decision to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum, the Government have worked hard to develop a positive future relationship with the EU, and we continue to build on that relationship. As part of this effort, the Department for Transport prepared for a range of potential outcomes of the negotiations. That included making a number of EU exit statutory instruments during the last few years, in order to prepare for a no-deal outcome.
On 24 December 2020, an agreement was successfully reached with the European Union in the form of the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 retained directly applicable EU legislation as UK law on implementation period completion day, which was 31 December 2020. That included the EU drivers’ hours and tachograph regulations, providing continuity and certainty to industry and consumers. Some amendments to those regulations were required, to ensure that the legislation continued to function effectively on 31 December 2020, which was the implementation period completion day. That was done via an EU exit statutory instrument: the Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which amended the retained EU drivers’ hours and tachograph regulations to correct inoperabilities on the implementation period completion day. It also amended domestic legislation to make the retained drivers’ hours and tachograph regulations enforceable.
For the benefit of Members who might not be aware of the detail, I shall make a few remarks about the EU drivers’ hours rules, which have been retained by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The rules are central to keeping our roads safe and ensuring driver safety. The rules set maximum driving times, and minimum break and rest times, for most commercial drivers of both lorries and coaches. For example, the rules mean that a driver must take a 45-minute break after 4.5 hours of driving, and daily driving time is normally limited to nine hours.
The consequences of driving any vehicle when fatigued can be catastrophic, and the potential risks associated with heavy commercial vehicles are particularly severe. Drivers’ hours rules are enforced by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and the police at targeted roadside checks, and by visiting operators’ premises. The principal tool used by enforcement officers is the record generated by the tachograph, a device installed in relevant vehicles that records the driving, rest and break times of individual vehicles and their drivers. The retained EU tachograph regulation mandates the use of tachographs by relevant drivers.
The regulations were urgently laid before the House on 31 December under the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. They ensure that rules relating to drivers’ hours and tachographs can continue to be enforced in Great Britain and Northern Ireland in respect of vehicles that are engaged in commercial road transport under the terms of the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement. The regulations amended domestic legislation to ensure that the roads chapter in the trade and co-operation agreement, which covers the drivers’ hours and tachograph rules that are applicable to journeys between the UK and EU from 1 January 2021, can be enforced. It does so by providing that the EU drivers’ hours regulation and the EU tachographs regulation, which are retained in domestic legislation, will apply to journeys between the UK and EU. The drivers’ hours and tachograph rules are important for public and driver safety, and the statutory instrument is required to ensure that such rules can continue to be enforced effectively. The policy area of drivers’ hours is devolved with respect to Northern Ireland. While, for the sake of efficiency, this SI makes amendments to the retained EU regulations on a UK-wide basis, that does not affect the devolved nature of the policy.
In summary, the regulations are essential to ensuring that the drivers’ hours and tachograph rules applicable to journeys between the UK and EU member states under the trade and co-operation agreement are enforceable. The rules are at the heart of the road safety regime for commercial vehicles. I am sure hon. Members share my desire to avoid any disruption to the proper enforcement of those rules, and I hope they will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Let me say at the outset that we will not oppose the regulations. The Opposition’s priority has always been to ensure that the rights and welfare of drivers are protected, and this amendment to legislation for the UK’s future outside the European Union is an important part of that.
I am pleased that the Government are applying rules regarding the monitoring and enforcement of the hours driven by haulage drivers to domestic journeys in the UK as well as international journeys. It is important to recognise that hauliers have kept this country going during the difficult times of the past year, ensuring that essential supplies of food and medicine have got through —sometimes in difficult circumstances. It is too easy to forget the contribution they make. It is vital for the safety of all of us using UK roads that those driving heavy goods vehicles are rested and can remain vigilant and drive safely. We know how terrible—I think the Minister said “catastrophic”—the consequences can be otherwise: we have all witnessed the accidents that occur sometimes because of driver error or other incidents. Limits on maximum hours driven and requiring rest breaks are the best way to keep us all safe, and it is right that they should continue to be protected in law now that the transition period is over. The regulations will help UK officials properly to enforce any breaches of the rules, so it is important that they are transferred into UK law.
However, the timing of the regulations is somewhat unfortunate, given recent developments. On 22 January, the Government extended the relaxation of enforcement for the retained EU drivers’ hours rules until 31 March. We agree that such measures may be necessary in the short term to avoid immediate chaos at our borders, but to extend the relaxations for more than two months is not exactly an expression of confidence from the Government in their own ability to address the chaotic situation.
Such emergency measures may not have been necessary had the Government negotiated a trade agreement with the EU in a timely manner rather than at the very last minute, or had they taken adequate steps to prepare, such as hiring and training the necessary number of customs agents. That reckless brinkmanship meant hauliers, importers and exporters had little time to prepare for the new customs regime, and the Government have had precious little time to communicate the new rules to them. As the Minister and I have discussed previously, that involves translation into many different languages through the haulier handbook—it is not a simple task to get the information out. As a result, we have seen regular reports of goods rotting in border facilities, UK hauliers facing a significant drop in demand for their services and predictions of shortages of goods in the coming months. In fact, the situation is predicted to get worse before it gets better, as many companies stockpiled before the end of the transition period to avoid being caught up in the chaos we now see.
The general post-Brexit watering down of workers’ rights is also relevant. Contrary to what the Government would like people to believe, being part of the EU never prevented the UK Government from raising their standards and going higher than the level playing field. The freedom we have now, about which many Government Members are so enthusiastic, is a freedom to lower standards and remove workers’ protections. That is why Labour has called an Opposition day debate today on that very topic. I hope the Minister will give the Committee some assurances that she appreciates the importance of legislative protections for drivers in the haulage sector that go above and beyond the regulations under discussion and that she will seek to uphold and, indeed, strengthen them whenever such issues cross her desk.
Rachel Maclean
May I join the hon. Lady in her comments about the importance of hauliers and the road haulage sector? We have all relied on them throughout the pandemic to move goods around the country, and we are all incredibly grateful to them. I further thank her for her support for the regulations which, as she clearly set out, are vital.
The hon. Lady made some broader comments—I am sure they will be well rehearsed in the Opposition day debate that I think is under way in the Chamber right now—and I will merely say that these are temporary measures that absolutely do not represent any watering down or any plans to reduce workers’ rights or protections now that we have left the EU. On the broader picture of the border and how it is operating, it is operating well at the moment, but we continue to work closely with the sector to resolve any issues as they come up. I hope the Committee has found the debate informative and will join me in supporting the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Agricultural Products, Food and Drink (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Organic Production (Organic Indications) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in the places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee, unless speaking. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. In a moment I will call the Minister to move the first motion and speak to both instruments. At the end of the debate I will put the question on the first motion and then ask the Minister to move the remaining motion formally.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Agricultural Products, Food and Drink (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 1661).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Organic Production (Organic Indications) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Victoria Prentis
It is good to serve with you in the Chair again, Mr Robertson. I will deal first with the food and drink regulations.
This instrument was made using the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 principally to make operability amendments to retained EU law. It is technical and does not introduce new policy. It was made using the made affirmative procedure under the Act to ensure that provisions were in place at the end of the transition period. The provisions could be confirmed only within the timeframe that required an urgent procedure because of the ongoing negotiations with the EU and third countries. The amendments made by this instrument primarily concern geographical indications. This includes transitioning obligations in EU wines and spirits agreements. It also extends to trade between the United Kingdom and the EU of wine and organic products.
GIs, as I am sure the Committee is aware, are a form of intellectual property protection for the names of food, drink and agricultural products that have qualities attributable to the place that they are produced in, or the traditional method by which they are made. They are highly valued in the communities that produce them, and as examples of the range of quality British products that are enjoyed around the world. They are also produced around the world and are an important part of the international trading landscape. The UK has signed a number of trade agreements that ensure continued protection for GIs, such as those that were previously protected under EU trade agreements. In some cases, trade deals were agreed but could not be ratified until the end of the transition period, so this SI concerns the bridging arrangements that were introduced to continue the effects of the previous agreements until ratification. It allows us to continue to protect GIs where bridging arrangements are in place. This ensures that the GIs that are already protected in the UK do not lose their protection because of a long ratification process elsewhere.
The instrument also adds an additional category of GI to ensure that a Japanese GI, Kumamoto Rush, remains protected in the UK. It was previously protected in an EU-Japan trade agreement, but it did not fit with any of the new GI product categories that we inherited from the EU. The addition of this category provides a clear basis on which to continue to protect the GI under our own agreement with Japan.
Turning to spirit drinks, the instrument provides for the continued protection of US product names in the UK to reflect the transitioned US spirit agreement. It does the same for Mexican product names once the agreement has come into force. It also enables the retained spirit drinks regulations for GIs to function correctly with regard to procedure and enforcement. As with the spirits amendments, with respect to the transitioned US wine agreement, this instrument makes retained regulations operable.
There are also a number of non-GI provisions. On wine, the regulations provide for a six-month easement on the new requirement for EU wines imported into the UK to be accompanied by a VI-1 certificate, which provides information on the type and analytical composition of a wine. The easement should minimise the potential for disruption to the UK market by allowing EU imports to arrive on the same commercial documents that were used while the UK was a member state. New, simplified certification arrangements are set out in the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement, which should cover movements of EU and UK-origin wines.
On organics, we have extended our recognition of the EU and EEA states as equivalent, and we have updated their list of control bodies. We have also ensured that organic products from the EU, EEA and Switzerland are allowed to continue to flow smoothly by providing a six-month easement on the requirement for certificates of inspection for such products.
I turn now to the second SI before us, which amends the legislation that applies to organic product labelling in order to ensure that it was operable at the end of the transition period and continues to be so. More specifically, the SI removes the mandatory requirement for the EU organic logo to be featured on organic products sold in Great Britain, and it provides the legal framework for our organic logo, which I have shared before with previous Committees and with the hon. Member for Cambridge, when we have finished developing it. It is still in discussion, as the Committee knows.
The SI also amends the requirement to include a statement of agricultural origin on packaging, so that it refers to the UK rather than to the EU. Where a product has been only partly farmed in the UK, organic operators should use labelling to show whether it is UK or non-UK agriculture. Failure to approve the SI would put our organic operators at risk of regulatory disruption, which could really affect their ability to trade.
In conclusion, the SIs are essential for smooth transition. Without them, we could not meet some of our international obligations. Retained legislation would not be operable, and vital transitional provisions would not be in place. I urge the Committee to approve the SIs.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. As ever, I thank the Minister for a full and comprehensive account of the latest pair of statutory instruments that we are discussing, which cover geographical indicators, wine and organics.
Let me start with the SI on agricultural products, which, as the Minister said, is already in effect. We understand why it is in effect: by the end of last year, urgent action was needed. The Prime Minister’s negotiating strategy, based on brinkmanship, determined that, and this weekend’s newspapers were full of the consequences. He said that there would be “no non-tariff barriers”, and the Minister will remember my fury on the day she briefed MPs, just after Christmas, at what I consider to be an outrageous misrepresentation. Everywhere we turn, we see businesses struggling with new rules and complexities. Although it is hard to imagine how much worse it could have been, it could have been even worse, so we understand why the legislation was needed urgently. In many cases, however, these are interim or bridging arrangements, as described in the explanatory memorandum. My fear is that there will be a lot of bridging in the months and years ahead, but we will deal with that as it comes.
The SIs relate to two areas where the Government published specific annexes in the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU: wine and organics. Some of my comments will relate to the interaction between those annexes and these SIs—not least the range of timescales in which things may happen, and the degree of uncertainty that that brings to everyone involved. In some cases there will be changes in a few months, as the Minister mentioned, but in the longest case it will be three years. Of course, there is always change in the world, but it is fair to say that in the last few decades, most businesses have operated in a fairly stable environment, which is what they tend to like. That is no longer the case. That is why it is so important that even if there is no certainty, there is transparency and clarity from the Government so that people have some idea of what to expect.
Geographical indicators are hugely important to our food businesses, and they are much prized. Indeed, reports suggest that they were one of the key areas in the negotiations with the EU. The Minister may wish to comment on whether the UK’s negotiating objectives were achieved. The lack of transparency throughout this entire process is illustrated by the fact that we rely on leaks and speculation, but today is an opportunity. Can we be told what the UK sought, and whether this is it? Personally, I rather doubt it.
Paragraph 7.3 of the explanatory memorandum suggests that the way out of the problem of running out of time and the complexity of ratification procedures in different countries is what would, in other walks of life, be described as “holding it together with some bits of string”. It is euphemistically described here as a “political commitment”. The Minister, as I have observed previously, knows the law well. I would be interested to get her view on what legal standing such political commitments confer, how any challenges might be dealt with and how long such bridging arrangements, supported by political commitments, will be in place. We may not get a clear answer, because I suspect no one knows.
Importantly, the instrument also deals with the rules on wine imports. I am sure the Minister has seen some of the stories in the media in recent days concerning the problems encountered by wine importers. There is a six-month transitional period before the rules in this instrument apply, so one could say that the troubles have only just begun. I am sure she will have seen the coverage of the problems faced by Daniel Lambert, which have been widely reported. He has speculated about the extra costs and what they might translate into. An extra £1 a bottle on a bottle of wine may not slip down well with some Government Members’ constituents, so there may be some explaining to do.
In my constituency, Hal Wilson, who runs the excellent Cambridge Wine Merchants, tells me that it has 19,000 bottles of red wine from Spain currently stuck in the system. I fear from past experience that the Secretary of State will tell us that this is an excellent opportunity for English wine growers, but I would gently say to the Government that it might be worth their while getting this sorted out. Like most people, I want my red wine in a glass, not a warehouse.
The Wine and Spirit Trade Association argues that 99.5% of the wine consumed in the UK is imported, and it therefore makes little sense to roll over EU-based legislation—in the WSTA’s view, the legislation was designed to act as a non-tariff barrier to protect EU wine producers—now that the transition period has ended. The WSTA makes a serious point, and I wonder whether the Minister could comment on it. It says that, even with the new simplified approach to wine import documentation for EU wine imports in the TCA, the requirement is still burdensome for producers and importers alike, while the requirement for the costly VI-1 form for non-EU wine remains.
The WSTA suggests removing the requirement completely. It also says that although the form offers self-certification, it still requires a customs stamp. If that were to be introduced electronically, it would need to be linked to the customs declaration service, and that would take a number of years to implement. Given that there were previously no certification requirements for EU wines coming into the UK, the WSTA argues that it makes no sense to introduce the requirement for a paper-based system when the ultimate goal is to replace it with an electronic system as soon as is practicable. The WSTA therefore recommends deferring the requirement to provide wine import documentation from the EU until the electronic system foreseen in “Trade in Wine”, article 3 of annex TBT-5 to the TCA, can be introduced.
That annex also says that within three years, there will be further discussion between the parties to facilitate trade in wine. In other words, there is absolutely no certainty for the future. Can the Minister tell us what the Government seek to achieve in those discussions? I would welcome her comments, because there is a theme emerging in all our discussions of these detailed statutory instruments. Here we are discussing the law, but in the real world, the practical implementation and the systems are causing the problems. As the Executive, the Government are particularly responsible for the latter.
The interim nature of the arrangements for wine is mirrored in the provisions for organics in the statutory instruments that we are debating. Welcome as they are, many of the timeframes are short. It is just six months before certificates of inspection for imports will be required. The second instrument, on organics, raises a number of questions. Paragraph 2.4 of the explanatory memorandum refers to rules for a UK organic logo “when developed”. As the Minister said, we have looked at the designs previously, but perhaps we can be told when that is likely to happen, and why there are delays.
OF&G Organic certifies more than half the UK organic land, and Roger Kerr, its chief executive officer, tells me that the securing of an organic equivalence within the free trade agreement was welcome. However, this is only for a limited period of time, and unless both the EU and UK recognise the other party as equivalent at the end of the current arrangement, it will fall away, leaving UK operators denied access to the European market. He says:
“This is only 36 months away and leaves UK organic businesses in a position that they will be unable to secure long term supply contracts due to the on-going uncertainty. The delays around securing the FTA and the uncertainty with whether there would be an organic equivalency agreement within that, has already had a negative impact on UK operators through the loss of hard won markets.”
The Minister will remember we discussed that point in an SI debate before Christmas, when that recognition was still in doubt.
I am afraid the problems go further still, as Roger explains. He says:
“The FTA also does not make provision for the ‘selling on’ of unprocessed products that are imported into the UK. For example at the moment organic soya imported into Hull cannot be subsequently shipped to NI under the current terms of the FTA, leaving NI organic livestock producers potentially without the correct balanced rations for their animals. Import/export businesses which currently import products from Europe and then consolidate loads for export again are no longer able to do this. Specialist food manufacturers who have their products packed by specialist packers in Europe and then import the finished product back into the UK for distribution to their customers cannot export these products to their European customers. This will have significant impacts across the UK organic supply chain and needs to be resolved as soon as possible.”
We recognise the importance of having arrangements in place on GIs, on wine and on organics, so we will not oppose these statutory instruments. However, we believe that in too many cases, they are just bridging measures. With so many businesses struggling at the moment, there are many questions to be answered, and I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some answers.
Victoria Prentis
I will do my best. This is not the time or the place for a discussion of the rights and wrongs of Brexit, or indeed the rights and wrongs of the TCA. I am extremely pleased that we were able to agree a tariff-free arrangement for trading with our friends and neighbours in the EU.
The UK GIs are already on the EU register and, as such, they remain protected. We have agreed a review clause in the TCA, so that we can agree the rules with the Commission in future on how we protect GIs. I think that is a perfectly satisfactory arrangement. I have discussed with the hon. Gentleman before how ambitious the Government are in the GI space, and I feel that this system will work well for both sides.
I turn to some specifics. VI-1s are already established for imports from other non-EU sources of wine, of which there are many, as we all know. We have a competitive market for wine in the UK, and we decided that the existing rules should be retained for imports from the EU, rather than establishing a new and specific EU policy. The policy was decided in the interests of treating the wine industry as a whole. Nevertheless, this instrument provides an easement to give traders time to get used to the new arrangements until 1 July. That will allow EU wine to continue to be imported using commercial documentation, as it was when the UK was subject to the previous EU rules.
The hon. Gentleman pressed me about the future. It is true that leaving the EU gives us the ability to look critically at the laws we have inherited from the EU, to ensure that they remain fit for purpose. In a world where we drink wine from all around the world—including from on our own shores—we will consider in due course whether there is a case for revisiting the requirements of the VI-1 certification.
The hon. Gentleman asked about organics. We are committed to the highest organic standards and will carefully consider any enhancements to them. This is the beginning of a new chapter for the UK. We will use the Agriculture Act 2020 to set an ambitious new course for the organic sector. We are working to ensure that organic goods can continue to move freely between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In terms of movement into Northern Ireland, through the Joint Committee agreement and the UK-EU TCA, we have secured easements to allow time for adjustments to take place. The easement on the requirement of certificates of inspection will ensure the smooth flow of the majority of organic products at the border for three months. During that time, we are engaging heavily with the organics sector, the Northern Ireland Executive, port authorities and others, to help them to prepare for the end of the easement in April. In the light of that, I ask that the Committee approve these statutory instruments.
Question put and agreed to.
ORGANIC PRODUCTION (ORGANIC INDICATIONS) (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Organic Production (Organic Indications) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 1669.)—(Victoria Prentis.)
Ministerial Correction
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
The Minister is right that vaccines alone are not enough, and she is aware that the International Development Committee has just done an inquiry on the secondary impacts, which show that developing countries are suffering economically through their healthcare and through gender inequality. What efforts and preparations are being made by FCDO to prevent there being a development mountain to climb after the pandemic subsides?
Wendy Morton
I recognise the work of the IDC and I am very pleased that its work is continuing. Let me just reiterate that when it comes to covid-19, the UK and the FCDO remain at the forefront. With the funds that we have, we continue to support the world’s poorest, and we will continue to focus on the bottom billion. Yes, it is about working with the development world, but it is also about working, where we can, with the public sector and the private sector. I look to the example of Oxford-AstraZeneca. The UK Government invested £84 million in helping to develop that vaccine, and we are now rolling it out. We have committed to the AMC, and we are absolutely committed to helping the world’s poorest.
[Official Report, 19 January 2021, Vol. 687, c. 761.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton):
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion).
The correct response should have been:
Wendy Morton
I recognise the work of the IDC and I am very pleased that its work is continuing. Let me just reiterate that when it comes to covid-19, the UK and the FCDO remain at the forefront. With the funds that we have, we continue to support the world’s poorest, and we will continue to focus on the bottom billion. Yes, it is about working with the development world, but it is also about working, where we can, with the public sector and the private sector. I look to the example of Oxford-AstraZeneca. The UK Government invested £131 million in helping to develop that vaccine, along with the Imperial College candidate. We have committed to the AMC, and we are absolutely committed to helping the world’s poorest.
Petition
Reversing cuts to the aid budget
Written Statement
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tackling Child Sexual Abuse Strategy
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Last week, on 22 January, the Government published the tackling child sexual abuse strategy. As the first strategy of its kind, it sets out an ambitious blueprint for preventing and tackling all forms of child sexual abuse—whether these crimes take place within the family, in the community or online. In the past, a culture of denial emboldened offenders committing these heinous crimes. This must never happen again.
The strategy builds on previous work across Government to tackle child sexual abuse. It recognises the scale of the problem, its hidden nature, and the way it continues to evolve, outlining a fresh approach focused on the relentless pursuit of offenders and better protection for victims and survivors.
The recently published paper on group-based child sexual exploitation highlighted that the data collected on offender and victim characteristics is inadequate, and that there is a need to improve the quality and extent of data collected in relation to the modus operandi of offending. The strategy therefore commits to working with local authorities to understand and respond to threats within their communities, and to collecting higher quality data on offenders so that the Government can build a fuller picture on the characteristics of perpetrators and help tackle the abuse that has blighted many towns and cities in England.
In addition, the strategy outlines the immediate steps we will take to tackle all forms of offending, including:
Investing in the UK’s world-leading child abuse image database to identify and catch more offenders quicker, including new tools to speed-up police investigations;
Committing to a review of Sarah’s law to make it easier for parents and carers to ask the police if someone has a criminal record for child sexual offences;
Supporting local areas to improve their response to exploitation through funding for the Home Office-funded prevention programme;
Preventing abuse by raising awareness through communications and engagement with parents and the wider public, as well as providing professionals with skills and resources to intervene early;
Providing victims and survivors with the support they need to rebuild their lives, ensuring their rights are protected in the criminal justice system and investing to improve support services and embed best practice;
Working with partners overseas to strengthen child protection systems in countries where children are particularly at risk, and clamping down on individuals who travel abroad to rape and abuse children.
Using new legislation and enhanced technology to stop offenders in their tracks, including introducing the ground-breaking Online Safety Bill and GCHQ collaborating with the tech industry to identify and develop solutions to crack down on large-scale online child sexual abuse.
Protecting children and the most vulnerable in our society is one of the Government’s most fundamental and important roles. This strategy underlines my unwavering determination to crack down on perpetrators, place victims and survivors at the heart of our approach and restore confidence in the criminal justice system’s ability to tackle these repulsive crimes.
The tackling child sexual abuse strategy is available on gov.uk. A copy of the strategy will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS733]
Grand Committee
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Motion to Take Note of the report from the Select Committee on Intergenerational Fairness and Provision Tackling Intergenerational Unfairness. The time limit is three hours. I call the noble Lord, Lord Price.
Tackling Intergenerational Unfairness (Select Committee Report)
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Price
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Select Committee on Intergenerational Fairness and Provision Tackling intergenerational unfairness (HL Paper 329, Session 2017–19).
Lord Price (Con) [V]
Thank you. I first declare an interest as set out in the register. I am delighted to open this debate on behalf of my noble friend Lord True, who was chair of the committee. Due to his good work, he is now a government Minister, which should be a warning to all of us. The committee comprised the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, the noble Lord, Lord Horlick, my noble friends Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lady Jenkin of Kennington, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and, last but not least, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, who proposed the committee. On behalf of my noble friend Lord True, I thank all noble Lords for being on the committee and for their service. I also, on behalf of the committee, thank the officials: the clerk to begin with, Judith Brooke, and then Olivia Crabtree; Tim Stacey, Hannah Murdoch and our special adviser, Professor Jane Falkingham from Southampton University. Of course, on behalf of the committee, I also thank all those who came to give evidence.
The debate on the intergenerational fairness report, although late, is now more prescient. Its good intention came from wanting to examine the impact on the different generational cohorts in the decade that followed the financial crisis of 2008 and to recommend actions if required that would ensure a more equitable contribution to society going forward. It is worth remembering that, at the height of the financial crisis in 2010, the Government borrowed £150 billion in that financial year and that, in spite of tax rises and public spending cuts, our national debt rose from around £500 billion in 2007 to £1.8 trillion in 2018. In this financial year, the Government will borrow around £450 billion—three times the level of the peak of the financial crisis in 2010—taking our national debt to £2.1 trillion. Next year there are forecasts of another £200 billion of borrowing.
While some will argue that servicing this level of debt with low interest rates is affordable, it is worth remembering that our national debt repayments are currently the fourth-highest area of government spending. The Government in time will need to address our country’s debt and borrowing and, when they do, I hope that they will revisit this report and ensure a fair proportion of the repayment burden falls across all generations. I am delighted that the Office for National Statistics accepted the committee’s recommendation and is now reporting new intergenerational analysis and looking to do more. Only by having and sharing this data can we achieve the broad equivalence and fairness of contribution and receipt by each generation that the committee wanted to achieve.
The committee highlighted six conclusions: on data, housing, active communities, tax and spending, and two on the younger generation. It is on these final areas that I will focus my remarks. It was clear from the evidence we received that, post the financial crisis, pay progression for those in their 20s slowed compared to that of previous generations, and employment became less secure, with more temporary work, zero-hours contracts and unskilled work. As a consequence, it is now unlikely that this group will enjoy the generation-on-generation income gains seen in the past.
Furthermore, housing became more expensive and difficult for young people to buy as a result of QE, which made money cheaper for the older and more stable in society, fuelling house and share price growth. Looking to today and our handling of this pandemic, we see stamp duty temporarily suspended and QE again boosting house prices by circa 7% in 2020, once again making it even harder for those joining the labour market to afford a home of their own.
The pandemic will lead to more flexible working: two-thirds of employees completing the Happiness@Work survey said that they wanted a mix of office and home working, while 18% of mainly older employees do not want to return to the office at all. In the same research, under-29s were concerned for their career development and training in lockdown and beyond, and young managers were far less happy than their older counterparts as training, advice and guidance are now less easy to receive, as middle management is stripped out and work pressures increase.
Jobs in hospitality and retail have been decimated—sadly, we have seen more evidence of that again today—and these are often places where the young start their careers. As the report points out, there is also a need for more structured mid-career training to help employees adapt to the new world, and that is true now more than ever. And, with unemployment predicted to rise rapidly, there is a need to get the young who are leaving school and university into work, as well as on in work. For example, schemes such as Kickstart should be welcomed, but they need to be more available to SMEs if they are to make a substantive impact.
So now would be a good time for the Government to reassess the work of the Intergenerational Fairness Committee and the recommendations in its report. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, this report was published in April 2019, nearly two years ago, and it makes a nonsense of the long-established system of debating Select Committee reports in the House that so much time has elapsed since its publication. It is also regrettable that the Government have rejected so many of the report’s recommendations. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Price, I thank ONS for its decision to undertake a generational breakdown of the effects of tax and benefits on household income. It is admirable that it has already begun publishing an intergenerational analysis of the data it holds, and that it is consulting on ways to improve its data on transfers between generations, as the committee recommended.
I will focus on the need to understand, and take action on, the social and economic circumstances of young people in their 20s and 30s. In order to improve their well-being and to meet their aspirations, more public expenditure should be directed at this group. To make that easier, in the context of the debt burden just described by the noble Lord, Lord Price, there needs to be a reconfiguration of the generous tax and benefits position of those over 60. There was a time when the elderly were in a relatively weak financial situation compared with younger generations in employment. This is no longer the case. In order to achieve more vertical, as opposed to horizontal, fairness, the committee recommended that the triple lock for state pensions should be removed, and that instead the state pension should be uprated in line with average earnings to ensure parity with working people. The Government’s refusal to budge is costing the Treasury huge sums each year, and in the longer term is unsustainable. The triple lock has done its job and the Government should have the courage to drop it.
The tax system is also unfair, explicitly giving advantages to those over pension age by waiving national insurance contributions even if they are still working. Anyone who is working, whatever their age, should be taxed in the same way. The mythology that national insurance is a simple contributory scheme should be dropped. Professor John Hills, who sadly died recently, told the committee that is was an “accounting fiction”. In his excellent evidence, he also commented on other age-related social security payments, telling us, for example, that winter fuel payments towards the heating bills of those over 65
“are almost the least effective way of coping with fuel poverty.”
This is another unfair policy, since single parents are much more likely to be in fuel poverty than those over 65. The fact that the Government have rejected the committee’s recommendation to abolish it is another example of them taking the easy way out by defending the status quo.
I assume that the Minister accepts that there is also a need for a realistic assessment of the impact of longevity on the need to extend working life, leading to higher age thresholds for all age-related benefits, including the state pension. There should surely be an acceleration of raising the age of eligibility for state pensions. Failure to do so will place ever-greater burdens on the younger generations, who are paying an ever-larger bill for the costs of retirement of the older generations.
Let me turn now to young people themselves. The committee largely accepted the views of the Resolution Foundation and others that they are relatively worse off than their parents and grandparents were at a similar age. To help rectify this requires a massive investment in social and affordable housing, as implied by the noble Lord, Lord Price. The supply of this nowhere near meets demand, driving younger generations into poor-quality and insecure privately rented accommodation. Again, the Government failed to respond to the committee’s recommendations. One consequence of this failure is that the lack of an adequate home is magnifying the disadvantages suffered by the ever-growing number of children of those in their 30s who are now living in poverty.
I end by reflecting on the job opportunities and the linked issue of education and training for those in their 20s and 30s, compared with earlier generations, who have benefited from full employment for most of the last four or five decades. Young people face uncertain prospects of permanent employment. This is magnified by a global pandemic, which has done untold damage to our economy. However, there were already worrying trends in the growth of the gig economy, with its many downsides, well before Covid-19. Many thousands of jobs will need to be created, in particular in the green economy, to counteract climate change. Failure to meet our net-zero target will of course affect younger generations more than those of us who have lived most of our lives.
Many of these new jobs will require high levels of skill, which will be achieved only with more investment in education and training—notably in FE, which has been decimated by this Government and their predecessor. However, I welcome the Government’s change of heart on FE, even though it is too little and too late. This is urgent, since so many young people in their 20s have already missed out. They will need to be rescued and provided with learning opportunities that they have been denied in the past through newly invigorated and properly resourced FE programmes. Finally, as the report made clear, they will need to be supported by high-quality, lifelong learning to meet the needs of a 100-year life.
Baroness Thornhill (LD) [V]
I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who demonstrated her mastery of the art of diplomatic disagreement and tenacity in some passionate exchanges during our discussions. This was the first Select Committee that I have been on since coming into your Lordships’ House, and I will confess to being both excited and nervous when I saw who were going to be my colleagues. I looked everyone up and knew that it would be a privilege to work with such a distinguished group.
I was also pleased to find another cheerleader for local government in the shape of our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord True. His experience and understanding of the role that local government can play in this area helped me in my role. I pay thanks and tribute to our community contact group, who gave up their time to come to Westminster on several occasions and contribute to our work. It certainly gave us a reality check to balance against the theories of our expert witnesses.
There is good news from our inquiry: that a strong and positive relationship exists between generations, even though there are serious concerns about fairness in public policy. Any policy based on the expectation that future generations will pick up the tab and pay disproportionately for present or past consumption cannot be considered either fair or just. Generations should not be unduly harmed by the actions of a previous or subsequent cohort, and there is a reasonable expectation that life should improve for the next generation. This is certainly a wicked issue, and the complexities and interrelatedness of so many of the questions raised led us to feel that all policy should have to answer at least two questions. What impact will this have on future generations in the short and long term, and how can we take this into account in setting policy? We were left in no doubt that this was an important aspect of all policy-making.
The report had at its heart the concept of the 100-year life course, which runs through all our themes. One in three babies born today will reach their 100th birthday. We are living longer and are mostly healthier for longer, but does public policy really take account of this? Do we take account of it in our own lives? All our assumptions were questioned and tested by our witnesses.
We learned that there is a structural shift taking place, with younger generations not seeing the increase in living standards enjoyed by previous generations. At the same time, older generations face a society that is not prepared for their numbers or needs as they age. Many young people, and their parents and grandparents, worry about whether they will be able to afford a home or achieve a secure, well-paying job. This is the result of a failure of successive Governments to plan for the future and prepare for the social, economic and technological changes that are rapidly taking place. Across all the themes in the report, from education to housing through taxation and benefits, work and skills, our evidence demonstrates that this is rarely taken into account.
Perhaps it was no surprise, then, to find that witness after witness commented on the lack of meaningful and appropriate datasets and statistical evidence for their work—although, as we have already heard, the Office for National Statistics is to be thanked for its immediate response to the report in which it accepted all the committee’s recommendations that were pertinent to it. It has since begun publishing new intergenerational analysis of the data it holds and has committed to including that analysis in future data releases. This was encouraging—unlike the Government’s response, which was disappointing to say the least. The Government responded to only 29 of our 41 recommendations, and of those 29 they rejected 21, thus rather proving the point of the core finding of our evidence: that intergenerational fairness is not currently considered relevant or pertinent to policy-making.
This indifference has been further heightened by the 18 months taken to bring the report to the House. Although I accept that Brexit and the pandemic have clearly had to be priorities, it is still disappointing. Reading through our recommendations to prepare for this debate, I was forcefully struck by the fact that many have been made more pertinent and urgent by both these events, as amplified by the noble Lord, Lord Price. The pandemic has changed forever the way that we work. Closing and opening schools has worsened inequalities. The impact of the coronavirus will be one of the defining features of a whole generation of British schoolchildren. The Chartered Institute of Housing recently warned that the UK is ill-prepared to deal with the housing needs that have now been made so much worse, that it is young households which will suffer the most, and that the crushing debt our society now carries will have to mean a serious rethink of who pays for what, and how, in the future. Now, more than ever, it is time to think in terms of intergenerational fairness.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I call the next speaker: the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. Lord Bichard? I will have to move on to call the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
Is that Lord Bichard?
Lord Bichard (CB) [V]
It is. I thought I was being unmuted. I have now unmuted myself, and I apologise to Members for that.
If I may continue, I will say that I share the frustration and disappointment already expressed about the delay in bringing this report to the House. But I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that when you come to reread the report now it seems, in many ways. more relevant than when we wrote it two long years ago, and I want to focus on two issues where that is particularly the case.
Some people will have been surprised that the committee concluded that what we call “the intergenerational compact” remains strong. However, we found little evidence that one generation blamed another for the problems that it faced, and much evidence that different generations were providing each other with support, especially within communities and families. In a world that has become much more polarised during the pandemic, we should value and protect that compact. As the divisions between rich and poor, black and white, north and south, and leave and remain have become more pronounced, we really cannot afford to overlay them with intergenerational rifts.
Yet some generational groups will exit the pandemic harbouring a sense of injustice and looking to be reassured. As the report points out, to sustain or rediscover a positive relationship between generations, there needs to be
“a broad equivalence, and a sense of equivalence, about what is contributed … and what is received”
from the state during a lifetime. Quite simply, generations need to feel that they are getting a fair deal. For that to be achieved, Governments need to be—at the very least—aware of and able to explain the consequences of new policy proposals across the generations, as well as the changing impact of existing policies. That is why the committee made what I think are some very straightforward and simple recommendations. For example, it suggests:
“The Government should create Intergenerational Impact Assessments for all draft legislation … invest in developing its capacity to model the generational effects of tax and benefits policies”
and focus more on the long term. As the report says, to tackle a problem properly you need to understand it. I think we were saying that we do not yet have the data to understand it well.
As has been said, the Government’s response to these proposals has been, frankly, disappointing. The emphasis on reduced borrowing to lessen the debt burden on future generations never addressed the report’s recommendations and now looks sadly out of touch with the reality of public finances. The promise to continue to publish “a full Spending Review” at the conclusion of any comprehensive spending review does nothing to deliver the longer-term focus that the committee argued was needed, and the reference to the Treasury’s Green Book does little to respond to the simple suggestion that there should be intergenerational impact assessments. As has been said—I will not labour the point—the ONS response was much more positive. Is it too much to ask the new Government to look again at the committee’s recommendations on accounting for the future? I hope not.
The other section of the report that I want to touch on is chapter 6 and the importance of communities, about which the committee felt strongly. It stated:
“Community initiatives that bring generations together are an important way of cementing intergenerational bonds”
and tackling social problems such as loneliness and rough sleeping. They certainly are. The Government should therefore enable, rather than police, community activity. This theme was picked up on very strongly by the Public Services Committee in its recent interim report. The committee felt that what we saw were a series of initiatives on community activity but not a coherent strategy. I fear that that is still the situation and will remain the case until we get the long-awaited devolution White Paper. We are still not giving sufficient emphasis to places, communities and devolution. I hope that we will do so in future, and that this report will help us in that.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford [V]
My Lords, I welcome this key report on intergenerational unfairness and this debate. It is a privilege to take part. I want to focus my contribution on three issues.
The first concerns education and training. I welcome the report’s perspective and recommendations; as others have said, they are even more relevant now. However, as we know, the landscape is shifting significantly beneath our feet because of the immediate demands of the pandemic and the likely longer-term shifts in working patterns created by the fourth industrial revolution. We are sorely in need of creative, imaginative, cross-party and cross-society intergenerational thinking on education for life, not simply for work.
Last week, I spent some time listening to colleagues whose role it is to support more than 280 Church of England schools in the diocese of Oxford, together responsible for the education of almost 60,000 children. While they reported the extraordinary creativity and commitment of their heads, teachers and governors, they also report that morale and energy in our schools are absolutely at rock bottom. Will the Government act to restore and build up the morale of the teaching profession at the moment? Will teachers be prioritised in the vaccination programme to enable schools to begin on-site teaching again more widely? Will the Government act to bring together the best minds of the day to focus on the challenge of all-age education through a royal commission or similar?
The second issue is that of the changing world of work and the rise of the gig economy. Many gig workers in our country are without rights; this disproportionately affects young adults. The proportion of the workforce in zero-hours and gig work is increasing. Low-paid workers in the UK are more than twice as likely to lose their jobs in the pandemic. The Government have accepted the need for a good work plan and have committed to legislating to improve the clarity of employment status. The need is even more urgent now than a year ago, yet there is still no new employment strategy and no apparent progress to remedy a situation that is getting worse every month.
The third issue is that of all-age communities. I welcome the survey and recommendations, especially the part played in the report by the people of Doncaster—part of my former diocese, Sheffield. However, the report and the Government’s response seem to be blind to the impact of churches and faith communities in building all-age social capital across communities and generations. The value of the services and support that church buildings alone provide, and the health and well-being that they create, has been calculated at £12.4 billion per annum. Churches were involved in running more than 35,000 projects before Covid, including food banks, parent and toddler groups, night shelters and breakfast clubs. Mosques, synagogues and gurdwaras are making a similar contribution within and across generations. Will the report’s authors and the Government give greater recognition to the vital role that faith communities play in the social fabric of the nation as builders of intergenerational fairness?
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Select Committee on an informative and constructive report on tackling intergenerational unfairness. I appreciate that there is overlap with other Select Committees in both Houses, which has an impact on the issues raised on the subject. However, I want to discuss in greater detail one important policy area that is touched on in the report: the lack of focus on the importance of active aging and the impact of providing opportunities for an active lifestyle to bridge the generational gap, with a particular focus on the elderly.
This is relevant to the committee’s findings on facilitating community activity. In paragraph 210, the report states:
“Local authorities should share intergenerational best practice and publish practical examples and information relating to community-run services and community assets.”
It adds:
“At all levels, government should be an enabler of community activity.”
This should be clearly linked to the importance of addressing loneliness. The report disappointingly notes in paragraph 15 that
“older generations face their own challenges in a society that is ill-prepared for their numbers and needs as they age. The generation born between 1946 and 1965 is substantially larger than subsequent or preceding ones.”
In paragraph 16, it states:
“Alongside these challenges to specific age groups the increased atomisation of our society also poses a threat to intergenerational fairness. The breakdown of common institutions has allowed loneliness to proliferate in both young and old people as well as creating a breeding ground for ill-informed stereotypes about other generations.”
Sadly, the section on the power of community action also notes, in paragraph 199:
“We are encouraged that there has been a recognition of youth loneliness but are eager that there should be more focus on … intergenerational connections. Our request to hear from a DCMS Minister on this and other intergenerational issues was rejected, despite the ministerial team on the loneliness strategy being located in that department. When we questioned Ministers from the MHCLG, the DWP and the DfE, none of them was able to answer questions on the Government’s loneliness strategy other than stating that there would be cross-departmental working. They were also not aware, until we prompted them, who was the lead on delivering the loneliness strategy since the previous Minister for Loneliness resigned. The current ministerial responsibility lies with the Minister for Civil Society, who at the time this report was published was Mims Davies. That suggests, despite the Government’s written evidence stating, ‘Central government will provide national leadership on this [loneliness] agenda’, it is not a priority for the Government and cross-departmental working has not been successfully achieved.”
The disappointment of the committee at this response is now magnified significantly as a result of Covid-19, the lockdowns, and the absolute priority which should be attached to addressing loneliness in this context. The key component of how we should help people remain independent and active as they age is a recognition that as people are living longer, we need to improve their quality of life. The toll taken on healthcare and social security systems can be significantly reduced. It is my view that loneliness and an active lifestyle should be considered together, and that government, health providers and professionals should take a lead if we are to achieve the goals of reducing loneliness and ensure that healthy older persons remain a resource to their families, communities and economies.
The World Health Organization’s report Active Ageing: A Policy Framework addresses these challenges. It recognises that active ageing is the process of optimising opportunities for health, participation and security to enhance quality of life as people age. Guild Living’s report Why is Social Connectedness Important? states:
“One way of achieving this is by creating mix-use areas in urban environments. These areas boast shared services (e.g. healthcare centres) alongside the later living options, which encourage increased social connections. Adding a weekend market, commuter route or a gym facility to a mix-use community area can quickly influence people’s daily activities and routines within a city. In doing so, we can then begin to reduce age segregation and decrease isolation in the third age.”
Clearly, intergenerational living can have a multitude of benefits, from reducing individual isolation at a personal level to improving the urban environment more broadly: a society that values quality human relationships but also helps to create versatile communities. In 2019, almost 4.5 million older people claimed to be lonely in the UK, with over half a million of those claiming that it stops them going out and about in everyday life. There is a very real social issue, so it is vital that we create communities with social connectedness and interaction at the forefront of the design to help reduce this isolation. By creating intergenerational community gardens, libraries, public parks and retail spaces as part of these developments, we can increase cross-generational interaction and encourage a more balanced society in general.
In closing, there is social prescribing, sometimes also referred to as community referral, as a means of enabling health professionals to refer people, not least the lonely, to a range of local, non-clinical services. Schemes delivering social prescribing can involve a range of activities, including, for example, volunteering, arts activities, group learning, gardening, nutritional advice and a range of sports.
What is missing in this excellent report is a focus on loneliness and a focus and a plan on the importance of an active lifestyle to bridge intergenerational gaps, loneliness and unfairness.
Viscount Chandos (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Price, for his clear introduction to the report by the committee. I was privileged to be a member of the committee and witnessed the contribution he made, along with that of other members, many of whom have spoken or are speaking today. As the noble Lord, Lord Price, noted, the committee’s chair, the noble Lord, Lord True, has gone on to even greater things. Although I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, winding up for the Government, I can only regret that we could not see the noble Lord, Lord True, with his customary agile footwork, both introducing the debate on his report and responding to it from his position on the Government Front Bench.
The noble Lord, Lord True, would have been more likely to have been able to present the report to your Lordships if it had not taken 21 months from its publication to it being debated, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone and others have noted. Even in the turbulent time that saw the parliamentary conflict over Brexit, a general election and the onset of the Covid crisis, this delay is regrettable, as is, even more so, the anodyne and disappointing written response given by the Government in July 2019, even if it was at least prompt. That said, like others, I believe that the report’s conclusions and recommendations are as valid now as two years ago—probably more so. Although Covid has posed a far greater direct threat to the health of older people, the broader social and economic impact of the measures taken to control the spread of the virus has affected every generation, and in many respects particularly the younger ones. The broad thrust of the report therefore, after the last Labour Government’s action to address pensioner poverty, that the greatest poverty and unfairness now lies with younger working-age people, is likely to be emphasised by the effects of the pandemic-combating policies of the past year and the months still to come.
Even though a number of the report’s recommendations, such as those on the pension triple lock, free television licences and other pensioner benefits, generated concern and criticism from interested parties, the costs of those must be appraised relative to the needs in younger cohorts of the population. Some of the actions that could make the greatest difference to younger people, such as in the area of housing, would not however require much if any revenue funding. Improved rights for tenants of private landlords would provide vitally enhanced security for generations for whom home ownership is at least being delayed compared to earlier generations, and in many cases realistically ruled out for the foreseeable future. Improving the supply of affordable housing will require capital funding, whether through government or the private sector, rather than revenue funding.
I will conclude by focusing on an issue only really just touched on by the committee: the way the taxation of capital compared to that of income gives rise to some of the greatest inequity between the generations. Over the past 30 years, the value of assets relative to GDP in the UK has more than doubled, whereas average earnings have hardly grown at all. Over any period, let alone one which has seen such a pronounced increase in the value of residential housing and stock market securities, capital will generally be concentrated in the hands of older cohorts. If capital is relatively lightly taxed compared to income, as it generally is, that will inevitably favour older cohorts of the population. The report states:
“Inheritance Tax is capricious and not currently fit for purpose. Consideration needs to be given to whether and how assets should be taxed on death or transfer in a way that ensures fairness between generations.”
Inheritance tax is not the only way of taxing capital, but by definition, bequests on death and life-bound gifts are events at which time tax can be raised most easily and painlessly. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who has been such a powerful voice on the issue of intergenerational fairness, wrote in 2017 that
“we see inheritance as the next intergenerational frontier, particularly for those interested in the dynamic relationship between inter- and intra-generational inequalities.”
The committee’s excellent special adviser, Professor Jane Falkingham, argued early on in our sittings that intragenerational issues were inextricably bound up with the consideration of intergenerational ones. I suspect that the committee’s consensus might not have survived any attempt to define these intragenerational issues in respect of the reform of capital taxation, even if only limited inheritance tax. Until there is the commitment, courage and altruism on the part of government to address this issue, there will remain severe inequalities between generations and within them.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the committee on its work and the quality of this report, but I wish to take issue with recommendations 33 and 34—the proposal to end the triple lock as well as removing and reducing benefits provided to pensioners.
The triple lock has meant that the state pension has recovered some though not all of its value since it was introduced in 2011. I am sure that those who depend on the state pension would not agree that the job of the triple lock is done. The UK state pension is still one of the lowest in Europe, so it is vitally important to low earners and many women who have no private pensions, having spent much of their working lives caring for families. If this report is considering redistribution, we need to think about distribution not just between generations but between rich and poor and men and women. A highly redistributed flat-rate state pension does quite a lot on the latter two. Contributions into the state pension are progressive, in that you pay more national insurance contribution as you earn more, but the payout is broadly flat; then the state pension is taxed, so top earners put a lot more in and get less out.
Young people will be old one day. They will not have access to generous defined benefit schemes unless they work in the public sector and, if their wages are depressed by Covid and other influences that we have heard about here, the rates of return on investments on direct contribution pensions are likely to be modest for years to come. They are not going to have very good private pensions, which makes a good state pension really important for them.
The triple lock also helps to reduce the need to claim pension credit, which is very poorly taken up and which penalises those with modest amounts of savings. Also, many older pensioners who are dependent on the state pension have told me that they are deeply suspicious of means tests. Having paid national insurance all their lives, they believed that there was a guarantee that they would be looked after in their old and failing years and not left a devalued state pension that puts them into a life of poverty. Let us not forget that older pensioners did not receive the 2014 increase.
Are we so confident that future generations, including women and low earners, will have healthy private pensions—so happy with that that we are happy also to see the state pension further devalued by being raised only at the increase of average earnings, as this report recommends? The poorest pensioners are those most dependent on the triple lock; the fact that wealthy pensioners do not need the state pension and can well afford to pay for the benefits that they receive should not be a reason for making the poorest and oldest pensioners worse off. It is like saying that, as the average income in Surrey is twice that of Cornwall, to be fair to the people of Cornwall we should make the people of Surrey worse off. I was surprised that the report did not appear to consider more progressive approaches to ensure that those who can afford it should pay for their benefits or not receive them. There are certainly other ways of paying for the state pension. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, raising the eligible age in line with life expectancy is one way, so long as advance notice is given at an early stage—and, of course, as she said, working pensioners should pay national insurance.
The most glaring inequality between the generations is, of course, to do with housing, as other noble Lords have said, and being able to afford to buy a home. There is no doubt that younger people are now having to wait longer before they can afford to buy a first home. The key point is surely that the rise in housing wealth is currently with the older generation; it is going to cascade through the generations as each generation dies so, although wealth is currently stuck in the hands of pensioners, it will in due course pass on to each succeeding generation. A problem with this is that the typical inheritance happens too late, roughly at the age of 60.
The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, brought in a few suggestions in this area, in considering how the older generation could share their wealth with younger generations before they die. This is sometimes called “giving while living”. In that way, the older generation actually get to enjoy seeing the next generations benefit from their wealth and may even have a say in what it gets spent on, and the younger generation get a predictable amount at a predictable time instead of the lottery of when their parents or grandparents die. That is something that the report could have considered; it is a policy area that has been very much neglected, although I was encouraged to hear the noble Viscount talking about different forms of taxation to try to enable some more of the transfer of this wealth.
It is sad that this issue is often used to sow dissent and dissatisfaction between generations, and I am grateful for the sensitive way in which the committee has approached the subject, with generosity and open-mindedness. I am grateful also for the many positive recommendations within the report.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I very much welcome the opportunity to speak in this very important debate. It is a complex issue with many facets. The Covid pandemic and the Government’s response to it has highlighted many of the issues relevant to the overall discussion. The virus has had a disproportionately savage effect on the health and lives of older people and, at the same time, we are witnessing extreme economic pressures on the younger generation and severe educational impacts on our very youngest. I worry about the long-term consequences of the repeated lockdowns, necessary as they are, on the educational attainment, mental health and general well-being of our children and young people. Then, of course, there are the huge amounts of government spending that the Government have rightly committed to get us through this pandemic, which is creating a legacy of debt for future generations.
As others have said, we must set ourselves against anything that contributes to setting generation against generation. After the Brexit referendum, we saw some disgraceful attacks on older people in this country; they were lumped together and ascribed with a viewpoint, almost to the point where some suggested that they should not be allowed to vote or have any say in our country’s future. This is a generation of people who have contributed all their lives, and the pitting of one generation against another, stoked up by some who should know better, including elements of the media, has been one of the more disgraceful episodes in the life of our country in recent decades.
Today’s young people are tomorrow’s pensioners and it is important that every generation feels fully valued, government policy properly reflects long-term impacts and there is a sense of fairness throughout all sections of our society. There have been some immense challenges for government to ensure that there is adequate and affordable housing, and more must be done to address the lack of suitable housing. As has been said, that is the biggest challenge in relation to young people. The Government must give a much greater priority to lifelong learning. Providing easy routes into more flexible working arrangements and training throughout people’s working lives is essential. We have seen some dramatic changes to work patterns in the course of the last year because of the pandemic, accelerating in many instances what was inevitable or likely in any case. It is essential that government policy keeps up with the needs of workers in the 22nd-century economy.
The issue of age discrimination in the workplace needs to be tackled. That is an issue affecting not just older but young people as well. Many of those issues are areas of policy that need to be addressed not just in the context of intergenerational fairness—many of the issues apply within generations and not just between them. They need to be considered in their own right, with policies sustainable for the long term.
On tax, pensions and benefits, pensioners and young people are of course not homogeneous groups; there are many differences in levels of wealth and income among pensioners. It is wrong to generalise and imply that all pensioners are better off. About 1 million pensioners rely solely on the state for their income, and we know that the United Kingdom has one of the lowest state pensions in the world. Many pensioners have struggled all their lives to provide for their families and put some savings aside for some comfort in retirement. Illness and bad health are of course more likely, and even after pensions and healthcare spending, today’s pensioners contribute something in the region of an additional £40 billion through taxes, volunteering and unpaid caring duties.
In relation to the triple lock on pensions, it is essential that pension incomes keep pace with those of the rest of the population, and a means must be found to ensure that those income levels are maintained. The triple lock has gone some way towards rectifying the steady erosion of pensioner incomes, but of course nothing will replace a proper level of state pension overall.
The universality of benefits has been criticised. Although I have to say that they ensure that the stigma of means testing, which many feel today, is removed for many pensioners who therefore benefit in greater numbers than they otherwise would—these are benefits to which they are entitled—it is still the case that as a result of means testing many people miss out on benefits that they are entitled to, and that side of the equation has to be taken into account. We need to keep a balance in all these matters.
In closing, there is one urgent, essential matter that the Government need to get to grips with: the provision of social care in old age. The current position is unsustainable and the underfunding of social care is a national scandal. The decline of family and community networks is increasing demands on public services. The cost of social care is a significant burden and fear for many older people. Older people need to know that they are going to be able to live rich and fulfilling lives, and that the care system will be there for them if they need it. This needs a national solution and there has been too much prevarication.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in welcoming the report from the Select Committee on Intergenerational Fairness and Provision and its raft of sensible policy recommendations, I applaud the very thoughtful contributions that we have had in this debate, starting with the noble Lord, Lord Price.
Having been a government Minister for 12 years, seven of them in the Cabinet, I have seen how easy it is for a Government to get consumed by day-to-day pressures and the short term. Yet, as this debate and the committee’s report have highlighted, there are serious and fundamental problems facing our society, including the question of long-term social care and its completely inadequate funding, as well as widening inequality.
I want to praise and focus on the Welsh Government’s pathbreaking Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act, which was passed in 2015. Under it, 44 public bodies, including the Welsh Government themselves and local authorities, are obligated to promote sustainable development, to set well-being objectives and steps that maximise contributions to Wales’s national well-being goals, and to consider the five ways of working in their particular activity. The Act also establishes a Future Generations Commissioner to act as the guardian of the interests of future generations, to advise and support public bodies and to monitor and assess their progress and application. The commissioner, Sophie Howe, has argued:
“By taking bold decisions and actions now we can ensure that our children and our children’s children have a happy, healthy and secure future ahead of them.”
She emphasises the need to look 25 years ahead, if not more—a welcome change from the short-termism of much government policy. She also advises and challenges public bodies to consider how their activity supports the breaking of negative cycles and/or intergenerational challenges such as poverty, poor health, environmental damage and loss of biodiversity. The 1987 Brundtland report stated:
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
This principle sits at the heart of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act and of intergenerational fairness.
Mary Robinson, chair of The Elders and a former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said:
“There is a moral imperative to ensure that future generations of humanity can live full and healthy lives, underpinned by the dignity and rights promised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, due to climate change, unsustainable resource exploitation and worsening global inequality, the window of opportunity to leave a safe and fair world to future generations is rapidly closing. In order to consider their needs, we must look upon the decisions we take today through the eyes of future generations and allow our actions to be guided by the concept of intergenerational equity.”
One practical example comes from Cardiff City Council, where a public health consultant was seconded from the health board to lead on transportation strategy. Applying a public health lens to a transport problem produced a quite different set of solutions. The council’s transport white paper, for example, prioritised clean air and instigated a shift from private car travel to walking, cycling and public transport. The council also worked with parents to pilot a car ban in five primary schools in Cardiff. Cardiff’s doctors can now issue prescriptions for free bike hire for those who would benefit from increasing their physical activity.
Another example of innovative policy comes from the city of Brussels, which is supporting initiatives where older people offer a room in their home to a younger person to help to combat loneliness and issues around housing affordability. Projects are already under way in the city to create 350 new intergenerational homes as part of its public housing policy.
Led by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, there is a campaign for the enactment of a future generations Bill in this Parliament. I hope that this debate and the committee’s report will encourage that and, like Wales, we will recognise the importance of intergenerational fairness as a priority, thereby helping to ensure that the long-term implications for future generations will be at the heart of formulating new policies and ensuring that intergenerational inequalities in housing, pensions, higher education, income and climate change can rise to the top of the political agenda to protect their well-being.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am privileged to have been involved in this work, and I also declare an interest as chair of the Intergenerational Fairness Forum.
This report highlights many of the important intergenerational challenges that we face. One important topic that is not fully covered in the report ought to be spoken about, which is what I intend to do: the retirement prospects for Generation X and subsequent generations. The International Longevity Centre UK, which I am proud to head up, published a study in November 2020 that found that 57% of people in the UK born between 1965 and 1980—Generation X—said they would like to save more for their retirement but were struggling to do so. The Covid pandemic has resulted in the second global economic recession in 12 years. This, along with the issues highlighted in the Select Committee report, make the prospect of saving for retirement increasingly challenging for those currently working.
Recommendation 17 of the report calls for increased funding of higher education. University students in England currently pay the highest course fees in Europe. Unlike 30 years ago, when student fees in this country were low, the average student debt in England is now about £40,000—in contrast to Germany, where the average student debt is only £1,600.
Rates of home ownership have fallen in the past 20 years due to rising house prices. ONS figures for 2020 show that adults aged 35 to 45 are three times more likely to be renting and not own a home than 20 years ago. Recommendation 7 of the Select Committee report calls for policy changes to support long-term renters, while recommendations 9 to 14 call on the Government and local authorities to address planning and housing supply issues. Implementation of these recommendations is crucial to ensure that future generations are not locked out of the housing market, instead spending a significant proportion of their income on rent all their lives.
Recommendations 22 to 27 address current issues in the labour market. We know that more and more people are insecure in work. ONS figures for 2019 show that at least 3.7 million people are in roles where they have no security in relation to the hours they work or their income. For people in this position, it is not possible to get a mortgage to buy a home. Saving for one’s retirement when in insecure work is near impossible. From 2008 to 2014 was the longest period of falling wages in the UK since the end of the Second World War. The impact of the current Covid-19 crisis only a few years later will cause wages to decline further. Implementing the recommendations in this report is essential if there is to be any significant shift that will support future generations to save for their retirement. The ILC-UK report highlights that one in three members of generation X in the UK are at risk of retirement incomes that would result in minimum standards of living, increasing student debt, stagnant wage movement, growing levels of insecure employment and falling home ownership, all of which could be even worse for those born after 1980.
Policymakers have an obligation to uphold the intergenerational contract and to ensure that future generations do not see a decline in their quality of life. Unless the recommendations in this report along with other policy changes are implemented, future generations will not enjoy the same quality of life in retirement as their parents’ generation. This would be disastrous.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con) [V]
My Lords, pondering the original report before I had another look at it after all these months, I thought about which evidence sessions had stuck in my mind. They included the initial briefings by my noble friend Lord Willetts and evidence from Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Professor Sir John Hills. I take this opportunity to say what a loss his untimely death is, not just to family, friends and colleagues at the LSE but to the wider world of social policy, which might have hoped to have had his thinking available to it for many years ahead. I also remember my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s powerful evidence on student finance. Other evidence sessions were of course very useful and interesting and well worth reading again. I for one want to thank all those who participated and helped the committee as we inched our way towards an agreed report.
Given the complexities of the topic, I want also to thank both our chair, my noble friend Lord True, and the committee staff for their hard work in getting the report into good shape. The subject matter is enormously wide and complex. Once we had agreed the focus of the report, it took discipline to keep us on track and not to wander down a number of tempting rabbit holes.
Debating the report now in January 2021 rather than, as might have been expected, a year or more ago has of course shifted the context in a way we could not have imagined when we reported, but Covid has certainly served to amplify the themes and analysis which we picked up in the report in 2019. As with so many aspects of its social and economic impacts, Covid-19 has highlighted and exacerbated existing intergenerational economic and social inequalities and tensions.
Given the time constraints and like many others—we have not conferred—I shall focus my comments on housing and loneliness. We all know what the problem with housing is and the solution to it, and I was glad to see the recent Written Statement by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, in which he reminded the House of the Government’s manifesto pledge to
“deliver a million homes over the course of this Parliament and … seek to increase housebuilding towards 300,000 new homes a year.”
He added that the Government wanted to
“build more homes as a matter of social justice, of inter-generational fairness and as one of the best proven ways of creating jobs and economic growth.”
A lot of people will be watching, particularly when planning applications for good, low- cost, well-designed, zero-carbon and multigenerational housing, with all facilities within walking distance, are not supported by local councils. Very mixed messages are still coming out of government on planning, and this has to be sorted out.
One of the committee’s evidence sessions I remember best was that in which Sir John Hills said:
“In England, the last time I looked at it … we had more residential floor space per person than we have ever had, and yet we have a housing crisis. One of our problems is that we are not making optimal use of the space we have.”
I mentioned at the time that I lived in a multigenerational home. Until my mother died in August aged 96, there were four generations, or 12 people, in one home, which until 10 years ago was lived in by one old lady on her own. I am back in the bedroom I shared with my sister 60 years ago and, during lockdown in particular, we have been lucky enough to live, work and eat together in a way that once would have been the norm, thereby making good space of a big old house which otherwise would have been a white elephant. It also enabled my mother to die at home, surrounded by family who lived with her and loved her. Of course, this is not an option for many people, but I hope that the Government will look at innovative ways of using existing space.
I particularly like the Homeshare model, which is the exchange of housing for help in the house. Householders and home sharers share home life, time, skills and experience. This enables the householder to stay independently at home for longer, provides affordable accommodation at a time of housing shortage and high rent, and gives family and friends comfort that the householder has someone keeping an eye open for them. I urge the Government to encourage schemes of this kind, which work for everyone, old and young alike. This model also has the advantage of dealing with loneliness, another issue addressed in the report.
We heard from the Cares Family and others about loneliness, which was a problem then but is far more so as a result of enforced isolation and having a devastating impact on young and old. Research by the British Red Cross last year showed that 39% of adults have not had a meaningful conversation in two weeks, and that one in three worry that something will happen to them and no one will notice. ONS data consistently shows how 18 to 24 year-olds are more intensely and more often lonely than their older neighbours.
Yet while it has felt at times like Covid has been hellbent on pulling us apart, in other ways it has pushed us towards one another: from the record-breaking sign-ups for the NHS volunteer scheme to the 8 million of us who stepped in to offer a helping hand through mutual aid and volunteering or simply by reaching out a hand of friendship across hallways and on street corners. Much has been highlighted through this crisis about what different generations have in common. These are the green shoots of a new, renewed or deepened intergenerational understanding, connection and solidarity.
That two in three of us now believe we can make a difference in our community—a 16% increase from pre-pandemic levels—is a statistic that shows the benefit of ongoing volunteering and social relationships. Now is the opportunity for long-term thinking, with a laser-sharp focus on building back a better-connected and fairer society for all generations. I urge my noble friend the Minister to ensure that intergenerational fairness is at the heart of the Government’s social, digital, educational and economic recovery and rebuild plans.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when I first saw this report on the Order Paper, I felt that I should make one or two points. They were about points (2) and (3) in the summary, regarding housing supply and education and training. Of course, about two minutes later, we discover that the Government’s White Paper on lifelong learning is coming out and we have a Statement tomorrow. I will therefore restrict my remarks on the education facet to ones of a general quality.
We have a society that is obsessed with home ownership and in which we encourage people to take up home ownership. This means that if you cannot do it, you have effectively lost out. We have been told for many years that this is the way we should be living. Unless we get back to a situation where renting a house is normal, you are not discriminated against for doing it and you have some security when you are doing it, we are always going to have this problem. In the light of what has been pointed out here—it is a very recognised problem; there is no way that this is news to anybody—what are the Government going to do about securing the tenure of renters and making it economically advantageous for landlords to provide long-term tenure?
At the moment, with low interest rates and rising property values, it is always going to be tempting to sell a property or get rid of tenants and re-let. This means that the person who is renting is always going to be under pressure and looking over their shoulder because they do not know whether they have security. This does not encourage them to do anything on a fixed-term basis. It will discourage them from, for instance, getting married, having children and securing places where they can go to school. It does not help. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some idea about what the Government intend to do here.
It is a recognised problem and this Government have to deal with it. It is a real problem and has been there for a long time. We need to know what the thinking is and how that ties in, for instance, with other government activity. One of the points you could raise in almost any debate is: what is the cross-departmental attitude and approach to it? How are the departments communicating? We all know that cross-departmental approaches happen only if some people at the top of both groups make sure that they do—preferably the Prime Minister, but at least Secretaries of State, making a fuss. Otherwise, people sit in their little silos—I say that as I sit in my little goldfish bowl here, slightly more isolated and looking at what is going on.
Furthermore, one of the most depressing things about the report was discovering that I am a baby boomer and not part of Generation X. We must look at the training profile of what is going on here. I know that the Government are responding but I am not sure whether the Minister will respond tomorrow on this subject; I suspect not, but it is possible—we may find that out in the summing up. If we are going to encourage people to get trained for the jobs they are confronting at the moment, we must have a much more flexible approach. I see that this is suggested in the initial discussions on this. How does this tie into this structure? A job for life is something that is no longer there.
We have encouraged people towards other models of training in the past. A few years ago, everything was solved by making sure that everybody was a graduate, possibly because all the people who were proposing it were graduates and they had done okay. Then apprenticeships were the answer. They promised great things. Apprenticeships have a horrible problem of disappearing when economic problems come up or you are not recruiting. At the moment, we are hitting a depression—not caused by government action but maybe encouraged by it—so you will not get many apprenticeships coming up. The current government approach seems to be that of lifelong learning. Will the Government give us a general assurance today that if, for instance, you get a degree—a level 6 qualification—you will be able to get qualifications at lower levels, levels 4 and 5, to make yourself more relevant for jobs as they occur and change?
I mentioned my age before. I am of the age to have hit the depression of the late 1970s and early 1980s when the huge structure of production line jobs disappeared. We went to white-collar, retail and support jobs. Those jobs are disappearing now for other jobs based online. Will we take a flexible approach to make sure that people can retrain again? Otherwise, we are going to repeat the problems of the past.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, the decrease in the rates of home ownership for the younger generation is a major issue and not one of their own making. As this excellent report demonstrates, it is an important factor in addressing issues of intergenerational fairness. For many years, there has been a failure to supply housing adequately—an issue exacerbated by a cycle of stagnation fuelled by low market absorption rates and stalled developments.
The Letwin report suggests that one of the most important reasons for this is that developers will build new homes only at a rate that the market can absorb and that, by diversifying housing products, rates of absorption will increase. However, when I put down Written Questions to Her Majesty’s Government on this topic, never once has it been acknowledged that it might be in the interest of developers to land bank, as increased supply is likely to reduce house prices. While I believe that this has contributed to the lack of supply, I agree that low absorption remains a real issue. However, I do not think that diversification alone will solve it.
Since the 2008 financial crisis, like many other nations, we have pursued a monetary policy that increased asset prices. Quantitative easing has proved to be an effective mechanism for announcing budget deficits but, like any policy, it has both its benefits and its costs; in this case, it inflates assets. Of course, for those with assets, such as property, this is a very agreeable state to be in. It tends to benefit the older and the wealthier. However, for many young people, it has made property increasingly unaffordable. This report recognises that a decline in home ownership is partly due to house prices being inflated by monetary policy. This problem has been made worse by negative real interest rates and high rental costs, particularly in the more popular areas, making it almost impossible to save for a mortgage deposit. I acknowledge that tightening monetary policy may not reduce house prices, as there would be higher interest rates on mortgages, yet even the possibility of putting down a deposit and getting a mortgage is difficult when the monetary system is pitted against you.
The key point is that quantitative easing is not a win-win policy. Indeed, it is having a significant negative impact on many young people. I was therefore surprised when I asked the Government about this and received a Written Answer that said:
“The separation of fiscal and monetary policy is a key feature of the UK’s economic framework, and the Government does not comment on the conduct and effectiveness of monetary policy.”
This is not entirely correct as quantitative easing requires authorisation from the Treasury. If house prices are becoming unaffordable as a result of decisions made by the Government, they should not hide behind this separation. House prices have outstripped wage growth consistently over the past 20 years; I believe this to be the reason for lower ownership rates among our young people. Rising house prices are very lucrative for asset holders and corporate developers, but if Her Majesty’s Government genuinely want to help young people to get on the housing ladder, they need to be honest about the situation regarding corporate land banking or quantitative easing. It is therefore disappointing that the Government’s response to recommendation 6 focuses on inputs instead of setting out an ambitious programme based on outputs. I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will revisit this vital area as we try to work towards more intergenerational fairness as we emerge from the Covid pandemic.
Lord Bird (CB)
I would very much like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for promoting the Bill that I have going through the Lords; it is going through the Commons under Caroline Lucas. I thank the noble Lord very much—that saves me having to talk about it.
Why are we here? Where are we? Why are we talking about unfairness? This is an historical issue. One of the big problems that we have is the fact that we are a low-wage economy. We were one for most of the 20th century. If you go back to the 19th century, you will see that it was much easier for investors to invest in services and industry. It did not involve an awful lot of risk. As a low-wage economy, one thing is that, when there are a lot of low-wage jobs around, you can mop everybody up and everybody can be given something to do.
Unfortunately, in 1944 the Butler Education Act was enacted. It left about 35% of our children without schooling. Therefore, even today, we fail about 35% of our children at school and, because of that, dealing with them takes up to 70% of the time of both Houses of Parliament and local authorities. These social echoes are created because of the fact that there are people who have not been educated and have low wages. They are the working poor; they are the long-term unemployed; they are the people who use A&E departments. Unfortunately, as in my case, they fill up our prisons and institutions too. If you actually look at the low-wage economy, that is what is behind everything that we are talking about today.
Living in a low-wage economy, how does somebody create some wealth? Is it by saving their pennies and all sorts of things like that? How do people find their way out of a low-wage job so that they can move on? The way to do that is buying property. So we have the crown jewels. In Great Britain, they are the fact that you get on the housing ladder. That is virtually the only way that most ordinary people—people who want to move up socially—can get anywhere in life. Until we break that situation, we are not going anywhere. When 79% of the investments and concerns of our high street banks are to do with buying and selling property, you have 21% going on the development of businesses and investment in new businesses. Compare this with Germany, where 20% of banks’ time and investment is spent on the buying and selling of property, and 80% is spent on businesses and the creation of a high-wage economy. Germany has the opportunity to morph people out of poverty because it is a high-wage economy.
We must look at the fact that we in Great Britain have a very difficult investment history going back to the time of the Empire. We must start to make these big changes—that is, as in Germany, the Government becoming the big investors in new industries and technology so that we can morph people out of poverty and move them on. We have to move away from the fact that the only way you can become middle-class, socially mobile or prosperous in Britain is through buying and selling property.
The unfortunate thing is that, as well as creating a low-wage economy, you therefore have low-wage health, as we have realised in the Covid situation. What actually happened is this: our hospitals were 85% full before we even got into Covid. If you analyse those people who were in hospital, a lot of them were quite old and had passed through poverty. A lot of them had nutritional issues; 50% of people in our hospitals have nutritional issues because they have only been able to afford to eat stuff that is next to rubbish.
In my opinion, until we face up to these things—until the Government stop and have an audit of what is going well and going wrong—we will always be going round and asking “Is it this? Is it that?” The biggest thing that we can do at the moment is keeping our young people in their homes so that they have a future. Do not evict them; that is the big pressing issue. We must not prepare the children of tomorrow for the evictions and homelessness that could come at this particular time.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to participate in this afternoon’s debate. In doing so, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
It was a privilege to serve alongside colleagues, many of whom have spoken or will speak this afternoon, on the Select Committee under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord True. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Price on his excellent introduction and on deploying so many stats to such good effect in it. Similarly, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Moynihan on highlighting three key issues: loneliness, the public realm, which he rightly championed, and social prescribing.
As colleagues have already noted, the report is as pertinent today as it was when it was published some 21 months ago. The recommendations therein remain so. The Covid context has merely added extra piquancy to the report’s findings. In many ways, Covid is emblematic of the whole, with intergenerational issues and complexity. The health crisis has disproportionately affected our older citizens and taken many of them well before their time. On the flipside, it has decimated businesses, employment and education, particularly that of our young people.
As our report set out, and as Covid has demonstrated, we as a state and a society need to do far more with data and far more in real time to get to grips with some of these extraordinary policy challenges, which, as noble Lords have mentioned, are people challenges. When it comes to education, how will we enable our young people, kept away from school from so long, to recover and not be scarred for life by this educational shutout? When will the schools go back? What action is being taken urgently to enable this to happen? What plans are we putting in place to superserve those people and enable them to be in the position they would have been in had their education continued?
As other colleagues have mentioned, the skills White Paper is an excellent intervention in this space—not least the lifetime skills guarantee, which cuts through that often generational issue and understanding around education and skills, and the greater role for business and employers to set the skills that we will require to grow our economy when we come out of this terrible Covid crisis.
I want to add something on the issue of unpaid internships and their blighting impact, particularly on young people. Will my noble friend the Minister support my Private Member’s Bill seeking a prohibition on all work experience exceeding four weeks? In a modern economy, there should be no unpaid internships.
Other noble Lords have mentioned housing, which is a key issue, not least with the highly inflated assets resulting from quantitative easing. When it comes to London, is it still sensible that we are shooting for a 10 million population for it? Londoners were never consulted in the first instance, nor was the nation. Would it make more sense for London, as the capital, to be right-sized rather than supersized? Similarly, when it comes to levelling up, there are so many brownfield sites in and around all our towns and great cities up and down the country. What efforts are the Government making to get more housing developed on such brownfield sites, not least with factory builds, which can put up quality housing at greater speed to address the extraordinary housing need that we currently face?
The truth is that we are all in this, but currently we are not all in it together. We have to ensure that we all emerge from this Covid crisis together or we will not really emerge at all. I believe that will come from the right combination of talent and technology, inclusion and innovation. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the United Kingdom—the great fabric in the tapestry that runs through us all—is all about people, place and potential?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Price, and his special scrutiny committee on this report and on setting the context for this very important and appropriate debate. It raises issues around generational policy matters which have been brought into sharper focus as a result of Covid-19 and its associated impacts on health, the economy, education and recreation, and how they differ between and within generations. I think the noble Lord, Lord Price, referred to the report as being particularly prescient and I would have to agree with him.
I note that the committee published its report in April 2019, and that it alleged that
“the action and inaction of successive governments”
had risked undermining fairness between generations and called for improvements in six areas to tackle this: accounting for policies and data, housing, education, work, communities, and tax and benefits. In setting up the report, the Liaison Committee stated in March 2018 that concern for intergenerational fairness was growing
“as the millennial generation appears to be worse off than the baby boomer generation were at a similar age”.
That is probably now even more acute with the added layer of Covid.
The report referred to other factors which had exacerbated the situation for generations: an ageing population, the global financial crisis and successive government policies that have failed to consider generational issues. It also referred to the inability to access social and affordable housing among young people. What plans do the Government have, working with the devolved Administrations—as housing is a devolved issue—to increase the supply of affordable and social housing?
The Government tried in their response to demonstrate how they are tackling the issues but, as many have pointed out, their scorecard would state that they should have performed better, with a more caring, empathetic response focusing on the needs of the young, working families and the older generation. A new direction is required in reforming taxation and welfare—two issues that were mentioned in last Thursday’s debate—so as to focus on generational issues, particularly the needs of the younger generation.
This report, and the Government’s response to it, have now been overtaken by Covid and its consequences for a wide spectrum of society and environment. In fact, it has accelerated the fairness issue between the generations and accentuated the divisions in our communities. That is particularly true for young people, as they are now forced into online learning and tuition whether at school, college of further education or university. There is also uncertainty over trade apprenticeships and the potential for jobs in an economy facing a double-dip recession. Those who are or were in jobs in the hospitality sector are facing, in some instances, the fact that furloughing is no longer available; they are now out of work, with no resources, and do not know whether they will have jobs to go back to. With lockdowns, there is little opportunity for social interaction, although they are needed to press down the level of infection. All this can bring about mental ill-health issues.
For all generations, there is a need to look at reforming the taxation and welfare systems to focus on need. Accessibility to the benefits system is also needed, as is fairness. The Government’s policy, emerging from the Conservative Party manifesto, was to focus on a low-tax economy that benefits the rich but does little to help those in receipt of low incomes. There have been several reports since this one from the special Select Committee, including from the Resolution Foundation, the Intergenerational Foundation and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which focused on the disproportionate impact on younger people.
What action will the Government therefore take across departments and agencies to address intra- and intergenerational fairness? The issue has been apparent for many years, but the unfairness has now been accentuated by Covid and its consequences. In so doing, will they implement policy changes in welfare, housing, education, taxation and health systems that focus on the values and principles of social justice and equity? What will the Government do to reform welfare and taxation? Both are crying out for reform as we try to create that better, egalitarian society.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am happy to take note of this report and pleased that, somewhat belatedly, it is being given the attention it deserves. It represents an important piece of work and we should thank the members of the Select Committee for their efforts. There is much of the report with which I agree, particularly where it talks about the problems faced by young people. However, I am afraid that the underlying thesis, while widely held, is misconceived. What I find lacking in any discussion of intergenerational fairness is a clear exposition of the mechanics of how one generation can gain at the expense of another. We are never told exactly how it is possible for a current generation to force future generations to pay for our current consumption.
We have the independent Office for Budget Responsibility continuing to project growth in national income per head, so future generations overall are expected to be richer than we are. We are not eating the seed corn for future generations, let alone consuming now what future generations might produce. Overall, they will be better off. To the extent that there are groups within future generations who feel they are being treated unfairly, they need to look to their fellow citizens for fairness, not their parents and grandparents.
If we focus on the main conclusions of the report, a majority of them identify important social ills—but ills that have nothing to do with intergenerational fairness. There is no doubt that public services have got worse over time, so it is true that the education system
“is ill equipped for the needs of the rapidly changing labour market”
and that we need
“to directly tackle skills, care and housing shortages”.
But these problems stand by themselves; they really have nothing to do with generations having conflicting interests.
The problems we do face are real enough, but they are political in nature and looking at them within a framework of intergenerational fairness does not help in any way in finding a solution. What we have here is a confounding variable. Wealth is being conflated with age. There are clearly massive inequalities in Britain today, but they are inequalities of capital and income and have little to do with age. They will not be resolved by picking on one generation or another to bear the brunt of any solution.
It is true that not all pensioners are poor, in the same way that not all 20 year-olds are poor. While austerity measures in Britain continue to hit the poorest families hardest, those in a wealthy elite have seen their incomes spiral upwards. This is a question not of age but of social class and wealth. The answer is that as a society we should do much more to raise revenues from those who can afford it, including but not limited to the elderly, rather than relying on cuts to services, pensions and benefits that have a disproportionate impact on the poorest in society.
One of my biggest complains about the report is the statement that
“retired people have higher incomes on average than many younger groups.”
It is grossly misleading to focus on pensioners’ average incomes, because they vary widely. It is equally true that young people have higher incomes on average than many groups of pensioners. So long as there remain many poor pensioners—the millions who rely on state benefits—I will remain a strong defender of the triple lock. We should remember that the triple lock applies only to a limited part of pensioner incomes, namely the basic state pension and the new state pension, which are at only £134 and £170 a week respectively. I do not think that that is enough and, so long as that is the case, I will support the triple lock to produce a more adequate level.
It should also be understood that it is future generations of pensioners who will benefit most from the triple lock, as they will accrue higher pensions when they retire. Young people’s falling long-term economic prospects are not down to older people in society hoarding all the wealth. Increased university fees, unemployment, poorer job opportunities, lower pay and rapid house price inflation are the real causes of hardship among the young. Restricting the support that pensioners receive from the state would therefore do little to address the difficulties that young people face.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank members of the committee for the hard work they put into producing this report, but I must say that I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, said. Reading through the committee’s report again, I increasingly came to the view that, while there are some issues that undoubtedly disadvantage the younger generation, the key issue is fairness across the board. After all, for most of those who are born to well-off parents, many of the problems highlighted in the report will simply not exist. They will go to good schools, will stand a better than average chance of getting a good job and will have a helping hand on to the housing ladder, before inheriting a home when their parents die.
They will also have a better than average chance of sustainable good health. In the western world obesity, for instance, is disproportionately a reflection of social class. This pandemic has shone a brutal torch on the pernicious effects of the inequalities in our society, so I believe that there has to be an increased emphasis on fairness generally as a means of dealing with perceived intergenerational unfairness.
Potentially the greatest intergenerational unfairness we risk passing on is from climate change, and every one of us can have an impact in trying to ameliorate its effects: handing over a world in better climatic shape would be a great start to improving the life chances of future generations. As the report points out, our elderly population is expensive in terms of not just pensions but social and medical care. Sadly, the funding of that burden is falling on a diminishing pool, not only because of a sliding birth rate but because of the inevitable effects of Brexit, which has sent hundreds of thousands of predominantly young EU citizens back to their home countries, stopping them paying taxes into the UK’s coffers. They were net contributors to our finances, not dependants.
The balance of income between the elderly and the young is now—despite the noble Lord, Lord Davies, taking exception to the phrase—in favour of the elderly on average. Averages are always difficult, of course. Nevertheless, it means that the triple lock needs to be re-examined. Many of the people in the older generation have had the benefit of defined pensions: a luxury that increasingly few will now have, and that the young barely stand a chance of gaining.
There has to be a long-term plan for dealing with an issue that has been so often thrown into the long grass: the provision of social care. It has to be approached in a long-term way. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for explaining the benefits of active old age, and what a difference that can make to promoting health and combating loneliness. His prescription for being active and for community centres that can be enjoyed is absolutely right. Loneliness is a huge problem: it makes people ill and sends them to doctors. We need to tackle it in a different way. Prescriptions for art and culture can also be very effective.
This leads me to an issue highlighted in the report: the need for all-age communities. There are huge benefits to be had from encouraging the young and old to be mutually supportive. I point to the highly successful experiments in putting nursery schools into shared-provision properties with the elderly: both sides benefit hugely. Equally, I would endorse schemes for sharing accommodation where the elderly with spare space hand it over to younger people in return for help around the house. The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, spoke about this. Local authorities should embrace such schemes.
The report highlights the changing employment market that will face the younger generation, with the need to retrain regularly and to up their skills. Inevitably, jobs will evolve as technology impacts extensively on our lives, and reskilling will be something that government and employers need to invest in. We need to keep improving our productivity. But do we really need to accept the idea of a gig economy, which is so cruel to so many? There used to be a relationship between employer and employee that had mutual obligations. We should ask government to examine what it could do to encourage that sort of mutual support again, rather than just accepting a task/reward type of relationship.
However, more than 1 million households—2.4 million people—were destitute at some point in 2019. That was an increase of 35% on the year before. Some 550,000 of those people were children. There can be no worse start in life than to grow up in destitution. This is why, as the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, said, we need to look at intragenerational fairness if we are to deal with this problem.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will start with a general admonishment of the way that this House runs its affairs. It really is scandalous that this debate is taking place 21 months after the report was published. The excuses of Covid and Brexit are frankly not good enough. If we have agreed to set up special committees to investigate cross-cutting issues that we think are of public importance, the Government and the usual channels have got to show greater willingness to take them seriously. I would like the Minister to respond specifically to that point in her conclusion.
I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Price, to this role as stand-in chair. I got to know the noble Lord well when I chaired the Lancaster University council, of which he, an alumnus of the university, was a very wise member. I hope he will be able to play a big role in public policy in future because he combines the originality of the brilliant businessman that he is with an acute social conscience.
The report represents progress in illuminating the question of intergenerational fairness. It is very encouraging that the Office for National Statistics, run by another former member of the Lancaster University council, Sir Ian Diamond, is responding positively to its conclusions and, hopefully, is helpfully going to give us more information on whether this is a real problem, as I think it is, or not, as some other noble Lords believe.
I think it is a real problem when it comes to the question, “Where do Governments make their choices when they face harsh decisions on public spending?” In the 2010s the coalition and then the Conservative Government got that badly wrong. They prioritised preserving benefits for the over-60s while cutting them for families, which is one reason why child poverty is rising in such an alarming way. They showed that we were not all this together through the necessary austerity of these years. We chose to back one generation over another, and that was a great mistake.
We also face a grim financial position for the future—the noble Lord, Lord Price, painted the financial backcloth very well—and choices are going to become more acute. We have to face the fact that the welfare state that we have is unsustainable on the present tax base because of demographic pressures. That means the pressures of the rising demands of health and pensions and addressing the crisis in social care will increase public spending and, unless we are prepared to make our tax base more generous, we will not be able to afford to fund our services as they should be funded. The Covid crisis has made those choices worse. It has shown how threadbare our welfare safety net is and how deep the problem is of low pay in many sectors of the economy, particularly in essential public services. So we are going to face tough choices soon and my big fear is that crucial investments, such as in education, will be squeezed in the face of a Government who once again decide to prioritise the older age groups.
Of course, some of this can be addressed by some increase in taxation, which I favour, and I hope the Chancellor addresses that in his Budgets this year. We need a reform of council tax into a much fairer property tax. We need to equalise capital gains tax with income. We need to tackle tax expenditures, which are far too generous towards the wealthy on saving for their pensions. All those things are right. but our society is still going to be faced with very tough choices. The question is whether the political power of the elderly once again win out or we can actually find the will not to ignore the needs and opportunities of the young—because this must not be allowed to happen.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My lords, this has been an excellent debate, ably opened by the noble Lord, Lord Price. It is also overdue. Like many noble Lords, I do not find it acceptable—pandemics notwithstanding—that we are debating this very important report and government response nearly two years after their publication.
Intergenerational fairness is the notion of different generations supporting each other throughout their lives. From giving children the best start in life to caring for people in their old age, it is fundamental to our entire social fabric and cohesion. As we have heard today, we live in a time when the notion of intergenerational fairness is threatened. The accepted post-war norm had been for successive generations to experience better lives than their parents’. That is not true anymore for the younger generation. Instead they are experiencing worse outcomes in terms of pay, job security and housing. Now, as we have heard today, we must also factor in the devastating impact of the pandemic, particularly on younger people.
It was a pleasure and a privilege to serve on the select committee under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord True, who sadly is not present today, and to wrestle with these big, complex and interrelated areas of social and economic policy. I associate myself with the sentiments expressed by other noble Lords on the very sad loss of Professor Sir John Hills, with whom it was my privilege to work over many years on a range of social policy issues.
I sympathise with noble Lords who have raised the issues of intragenerational fairness and how they play out with intergenerational fairness. I simply say that that was not within our committee’s remit.
I cannot pretend to feel anything other than deep disappointment at the Government’s response. They responded to 29 of the committee’s 41 conclusions and recommendations, rejecting 21 of them. That left a grand total of two recommendations that they accepted. I always try to remain positive but at one point I was left wondering why we had bothered. However, I was cheered up when I noted that the Office for National Statistics had accepted the committee’s recommendations, and it has already begun publishing new intergenerational analysis of the data that it holds. I join other noble Lords today in thanking the ONS for its very positive response. I was heartened by that. It might all sound rather dull and technical, but I felt it went to the heart of what we were proposing in terms of both government and external commentators having the data to assess the intergenerational impact of the Government’s tax-and-spend decisions and their ability to take long-term, sustainable spending decisions. In short, we called on the Government to accept the principles of inter-generational accounting, and I repeat that call today.
When we launched our report in March 2019, we found out that this is not always an easy issue to debate. Unless carefully handled, it can stoke up all sort of anxieties and resentments. I think that we on the committee were very careful not to pitch generations against each other. I was therefore pleased when I looked back at the statement in the front of the report:
“The relationship between older and younger generations is still defined by mutual support and affection. However, the action and inaction of successive governments risks undermining the foundation of this relationship. Many in younger generations are struggling to find secure, well-paid jobs and secure, affordable housing, while many in older generations risk not receiving the support they need because government after government has failed to plan for a long-term generational timescale.”
I asked an Oral Question in May 2019 about the specific steps that the Government were taking to collect regular data on the intergenerational impact of tax and spend decisions. In responding, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said:
“One of the ways of reducing intergenerational unfairness is to take further steps to reduce the deficit, and the report explains exactly why it is unfair for any Government to go on borrowing and borrowing and load on to subsequent generations ever higher debt.”—[Official Report, 20/5/19; col. 1773.]
As the noble Lord, Lord Price, said at the start of the debate, given the unprecedented level of borrowing to deal with the immediate impact of the pandemic on people’s livelihoods, it is worth noting the example of Quebec, which has set up a generations fund dedicated exclusively to repaying Quebec’s debt with a strong focus on royalties from sustainable water power and private producers of hydroelectricity. I am not for one minute saying that that precise mechanism is directly transferable, but the concept is interesting and worthy of further exploration as we start to grapple with the huge debt that we are facing.
A key finding of our report was that young people were being held back by an education system that is not preparing them for a changing labour market and longer working life, setting them up to face major challenges in finding stable employment and good housing. There was too strong an emphasis on higher education; at the same time, the Government have restricted choices for young people by consistently underfunding further education. We noted that, since 2010,
“sixth forms have faced budget cuts of 21 per cent per student”.
This reiterated the argument of the Lords Select Committee on Social Mobility, which I also served on and which drew attention to the major funding disparities between further and higher education. By far the starkest statistic was a roughly £6,000 difference per student per year between those who study higher education courses at university and those who study further education courses at colleges—a staggering figure and, in my view, a major social injustice.
I welcome the direction of travel and many of the proposals contained in the Government’s Skills for Jobs White Paper, published last week, to improve access to vocational learning and match skills development to the needs of the local economy. That is part of a longer-term and very overdue move towards real parity of esteem between academic and vocational routes. What is needed now, as our Select Committee report clearly calls for, is funding for further and vocational education on a scale that matches the boldness of the proposals and continues to reverse decades of under-investment in FE. What assurances can the Minister give us about the action that the Government are taking on this point?
The pandemic—particularly how to pay for the immense but very necessary increases in public spending and crisis income support—throws the issue of intergenerational fairness into even sharper relief. Various external commentators and think tanks have already been sounding alarm bells, including the Social Market Foundation, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation, which underlined that the virus is having a dramatically different effect on different generations. Old people are much more likely to get severely ill but young people are taking a much worse economic hit. In partnership with the Nuffield Foundation, which is now producing an annual generational audit, tracking changes in the balance between the generations, this first assessment shows that, if you turn the focus from physical to mental health, the virus is actually having a severe health effect on young people too. I join other noble Lords this afternoon in saying that we must not let coronavirus exacerbate Britain’s inter-generational inequalities still further.
Finally, on social care, which some of us will debate later in the week, the funding of social care is yet another of those wicked policy issues that is generally put in the “too difficult” file and left to fester. I believe that we should look for a solution for sustainable funding for adult social care through the lens of intergenerational fairness. No one pretends that it will be easy, but we need to develop a way of providing sustainable funding for adult social care in which all generations contribute but no generation feels unfairly treated. This will be vital to ensure greater buy-in across generations. I also feel that a bold move in this direction could make it easier to reopen the deeply contested debate about some of the age-related benefits that our report showed are no longer targeting the issue that they were intended to solve or are simply going to sections of that age group that just do not need them—something that the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, powerfully set out. I also hope that it will provide the scope to look again at the case for individuals over state pension age who choose to continue to work making national insurance contributions, as the committee recommended.
I conclude by joining the noble Lord, Lord Price, in asking the Government to review and reassess all the committee’s recommendations in the light of the unprecedented circumstances we find ourselves in. As the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said, they remain as relevant today as they were two years ago.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Price, for introducing the report. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord True, on producing it—clearly with an eye on moving into government, as there is nothing terribly radical in it. Despite that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, the Government still could not accept most of it.
The report is peppered with real and challenging questions. I hope that the Minister will have some answers, not least to its comments on death duties—which, as my noble friend Lord Chandos reminded us, the committee called “capricious”—as well as on national insurance contributions and benefits and how they affect intergenerational and wider fairness.
On re-reading the report, it is clear that the issues highlighted in it have become supercharged as a result of the pandemic. It warned of slow pay progression for young workers and, historically uniquely, lower lifetime expectations than the current generation’s parents and grandparents. Covid has worsened what was written in 2019. We have seen the gig economy, where younger workers dominate, more affected by Covid. As last week’s ONS report showed, UK inequality was already at its highest point for a decade when coronavirus hit. Since then, labour market shocks have particularly hit the under-30s, who are a third more likely to be furloughed than the general population.
The younger generation’s insecure rental tenancies and, for those studying, the massive impact on their education and future work prospects, leave them with a vastly different outlook on life than my generation had at their age. Their homes are more insecure, with a completely unsatisfactory private rented sector unable to meet the challenge. The PRS has grown substantially, now catering for 20% of English households, as it tries to fill the gap left by the lack of social housing. Housing for Generation Rent must be tackled urgently. It is partly about quality and quantity, but also about fairness of treatment.
The Government have said that they will agree to regulate property agents as recommended in the report from the noble Lord, Lord Best. Work is taking place; I declare my interest in that I chair a group drawing up a code of conduct for when the Government establish the regulator. Perhaps the Minister could inform the Grand Committee when we might see action on this. High rents, inadequate income and high house prices mean that young people cannot save even for the deposit to get on the housing ladder, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans noted. We cannot sit by and let this generation down, bequeathing them a life prospect vastly inferior to previous generations.
Meanwhile, at the other end of the age spectrum, the elderly have been badly affected by the virus itself, whether in care homes or through being physically more at risk than younger bodies. While in income terms the elderly have fared relatively better than those in work—with their pensions protected by the triple lock and most having been of the generation to retire at 60 or 65—their worries about their final years in older age are real and have yet to be protected by long-term social care provision, despite promises made by the Government. The current situation of these two ends of the age spectrum highlights pre-existing problems that scream out for action.
Clearly, as the committee stressed, better vocational training is needed—but so are rights at work, where trade unions have a role to play. The changing nature of work has made it harder for young people to be represented. Can the Minister confirm that, in all the Government’s interventions, whether on employment, training or industrial policy, they will fully engage with unions and encourage employers to see them as a constructive way forward in upskilling and respecting the workforce? Will she take note of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bird?
Apprenticeships need a higher priority. Labour’s 2019 ambition was to create 80,000 climate apprenticeships, especially as, even before the virus, some 750,000 young people were not in education, employment or training. Since then, missed apprenticeships and school leavers unable to get jobs will have added to that number.
It is not just young people; the pandemic is wreaking havoc across the generations, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, noted. My noble friend Lady Blackstone talked about lifelong learning, and the former MP Gordon Marsden chaired a commission on this, which recommended a right to paid time off to reskill, with retraining fully funded up to level 3, a national careers service and flexible structures to accredit a wide range of learning. We hope that the Minister will be listening to these sorts of ideas.
My generation—which was also that of my noble friend Lord Davies—was the golden one. Born in the NHS, educated for free—right up to and through university, for those few of us able to access higher education—the post-1960s cohort had access to a wide range of freedoms, access to the pill, which meant we could plan our families, a health service, and a pension scheme which, for me, kicked in at 60. But we should not take any of that for granted. We were the lucky ones, but when I started work in 1970, “pensioner poverty” was rife, partly as a result of industrial pensions not being inflation proofed, so millions who had paid in to a pension scheme for their whole working life found that what started for men at 65 was pretty worthless 10 years later. Government intervention removed that inequity, but we must ensure that similar disparities do not again creep into systems set up to protect people. We must also heed the wise comments of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on loneliness and an active lifestyle in later life.
Our society is based on the desire of different generations to support one another. Parents care for children, their working lives pay tax and pension contributions to fund current care and their own futures, and—yes—to provide for their own grandchildren. In their old age, their children and grandchildren in turn tend and care for them—a compact, I think the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, called it. So it is for the whole of society, but things have got out of kilter, with today’s younger people reaping few of the benefits in terms of secure jobs, decent homes or even the guarantee of pensions long into the future. For today’s children, a year’s loss of schooling and social development will demand a policy response to right the impact that the pandemic is having on their lives. This generation of pupils will need particular attention if they are not to face a life reduced by the Covid experience. As the Conservative Tom Tugendhat said:
“Closed schools increase inequality, expose the most vulnerable, and create gaps that cannot be filled”.
As my noble friend Lord Liddle said, we must also find the political will to fill those gaps and ensure that we do not have a lost generation, and that today’s lack of intergenerational fairness is reversed in the future. As my noble friend Lord Hain said, it is a moral imperative.
This week, as I celebrate the arrival of a new grandson, Zakariya, like many in your Lordships’ House, I am deeply aware that what I wish for him is what the whole of today’s society must wish for future generations.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Price on securing this debate, and the members of the committee which produced this excellent report. This is a far-reaching issue, which is amply demonstrated by the range and insight of the contributions made by noble Lords today. The Government welcomed the publication of the original report of the Select Committee in July 2019, expressed their gratitude to the committee at the time and published a detailed written response, taking each recommendation in turn. In those cases where the Government did not agree with the committee’s recommendation, we explained why. I note noble Lords’ disappointment that this House has not had the opportunity to discuss this important report until now, although noble Lords did recognise the joint pressures of Brexit and responding to the current global pandemic in influencing that timing.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Price, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the other noble Lords who commented that the current pandemic has made the debate on intergenerational fairness all the more pertinent. We need to reassess the report in the light of today’s circumstances. The Government are acutely aware of the pandemic’s impact and the fact that it is not borne equally by different generations; their response has been developed with that in mind.
I will touch on that response later. First, I want to address in turn the major themes in the Select Committee’s report. On data and the policy-making approach of government, I assure noble Lords that accounting for the interests of future generations is a core consideration in the Government’s policy-making process, which requires that all programmes, projects and policies demonstrate the costs, benefits and risks associated with the intervention over their whole lifetime, in line with the Government’s Green Book. This includes both the social costs and social benefits of an intervention. Where long-term effects are expected to occur, the appraisal of proposals may involve longer timescales with declining discount rates and further sensitivity analysis. This helps to ensure that, where relevant, the costs and benefits of an intervention to future generations are captured.
The Government agree that the generational breakdowns are informative. We also welcome the new ONS generational breakdowns and their data. This adds to the DWP’s own data on households below average income, which also allows for generational analysis.
Among others, the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Addington, the noble Baronesses, Lady Greengross and Lady Ritchie, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford mentioned affordable housing— a key consideration in the committee’s report. The Government are committed to delivering more and better-designed homes, and to doing so faster. Investment in affordable housing is a priority. Last November’s spending review reconfirmed funding for the affordable homes programme, bringing total funding between 2021-22 and 2025-26 to £12.2 billion—and that is just the start. To tackle the root cause of a lack of affordability, we have set a target of building 300,000 homes a year. We are making good progress against that ambition, with last year seeing the delivery of around 244,000 additional homes—the highest level in more than 30 years.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Addington, emphasised the importance of not just improving home ownership but recognising improved circumstances for renters. I declare an interest as a member of Generation Rent or as a millennial—there are a number of other such terms—and as someone who rents but cannot yet afford to buy their own home. The Government are absolutely committed to improving the regulation of renting at the same time as increasing the supply of housing. We will introduce a renters’ reform Bill, which will create a fairer and more balanced rental market for all tenants, including younger renters. That will include removing Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, enhancing renters’ security by ending no-fault evictions. We are also introducing lifetime deposits to improve affordability for tenants when moving from one tenancy to the next.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked about the report from the noble Lord, Lord Best, which we welcome. It contained 53 detailed recommendations, which we are committed to considering in the light of the broader changes that we are making to deliver a better deal for renters. However, I must confess to the noble Baroness that our most recent efforts have focused on responding to the urgencies of the Covid pandemic. We will return to our efforts to respond to the wider recommendations in due course.
I want to mention social housing, which did not come up as much in this debate as it might have done. The solution to the housing crisis cannot just be about home ownership and more support and security in private rents; it must also be about having more socially rented homes for those who cannot afford the commercial rates that we now face. The Government are committed to increasing the supply of social housing, not just affordable housing. We have taken action to help councils to build more homes, for example through the removal of the cap on borrowing on the housing revenue account.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Jenkin and Lady Wheatcroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, spoke about the potential for local government to use its planning powers to create more healthy intergenerational communities, while the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, emphasised the importance of active ageing. They all touched on the impact of these measures on tackling loneliness. I reassure noble Lords that the Government’s commitment to these issues, particularly tackling loneliness, is central. This includes the first ever government strategy on loneliness and a Minister to lead this work, the current Minister being my noble friend Lady Barran.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan spoke of social prescribing. The Government are pioneering in their use of this tool. The NHS long-term plan committed to ensuring that at least 900,000 people will be referred to social prescribing by 2023-24.
On a fairer tax and benefits system, the Government are committed to ensuring economic security for people at every stage of their life, including when they reach retirement. Older people should be able to live with the dignity and respect they deserve, and the state pension is the foundation of support for older people.
Today’s debate has illustrated that the question of the appropriate level of that pension and the triple lock is not straightforward, although there was more consensus on the need to ensure that the state pension age is sustainable and maintains fairness between generations in future. To do this, the Government are committed to aiming for up to 32% in the long run as the right proportion of adult life to spend in receipt of the state pension. We have set in progress reforms to ensure that that is reviewed and updated regularly to maintain it. That and auto-enrolment are two examples of policies introduced under Governments of different colours that have been sustained over a period of time to help address some of the challenges that we face with intergenerational fairness.
I note that the committee and noble Lords today made several recommendations to reform taxes. As we set out in our response, changes are not always straightforward, but I reassure noble Lords that the Government keep all aspects of the tax system under review. However, any future changes will be made as part of the annual Budget process, which I do not plan to preview any further here. I shall also refrain from wading into the question of the independence of the Bank of England, raised by a number of noble Lords.
When it comes to employment, the Government are committed to improving the quality of work in the United Kingdom, recognising that those involved in insecure work are often younger. The noble Lord, Lord Bird, raised low pay. The Government accepted all the recommendations from the independent Low Pay Commission for the April 2021 national living wage and national minimum wage. That means that, despite challenging economic circumstances, those on the minimum wages will see another pay rise from April. For the first time since its introduction in 2016, the national living wage will be extended to those aged 23 and over from April 2021.
The Government are also committed to making the UK the best place in the world to work. As laid out in our manifesto, we will bring forward measures to establish an employment framework which is fit for purpose and keeps pace with the needs of the modern workplace, following the important review by Matthew Taylor. We have already made significant progress in implementing aspects of that review, including by improving worker protections, legislating for stronger protections for vulnerable agency workers and extending the right to a written statement to workers of their rights.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, spoke of the importance of green jobs and the green economy. Alongside the spending review, the Prime Minister announced a 10-point plan for the green industrial revolution which will mobilise £12 billion of government investment to create and support up to 250,000 highly-skilled green jobs.
The Government recognise the vital role that further education and vocational provision play in helping people develop the skills they need for work. That is why the Government invested £400 million in 2020-21, and an additional £291 million for the following year, into education for 16 to 19 year-olds, recognising the vital role of this sector in delivering the skills needed for the UK. As a number of noble Lords also noted, the Government’s skills White Paper published last week details our plans to take forward our commitment to lifelong skills, including the lifetime skills guarantee. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was right that we will be debating the ministerial Statement on that White Paper tomorrow, but it will be my noble friend Lady Berridge who takes that debate.
Education is also an area that has been hit hard by the pandemic. I thought my noble friend Lord Holmes and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, put it well: the pandemic has highlighted the uneven generational impacts that we have been discussing in this debate, from the fact that the oldest and those with underlying health conditions are the most at risk from the virus to the devastating impact of lockdowns on children and their parents, with schools closed and businesses forced to shut their doors. As I said, the Government are conscious of this uneven impact, and our response is focused on helping those who are hardest hit.
On education, our absolute priority is to get schools back. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford asked about the provision of vaccinations for teachers. As noble Lords will know, phase 1 of the vaccinations has been set out by the JCVI. That has been focused on protecting another group—those most vulnerable to the virus—from its worst effects, which will also have the effect of protecting our health system. For phase 2, the Government are in the process of considering the latest data from the first phase of vaccinations and other emerging evidence, and of course the importance of key workers, including teachers and school staff, will be part of that consideration.
However, noble Lords are right that, even when we get schools back, we will have a lot of work to do to ensure that those who have missed weeks of school get the help that they need to catch up. The Government have a £1 billion catch-up plan to help support children, which includes tutoring. We also have a plan in place to help ensure that those children who need it get access to remote IT provision to help them access education while schools are still closed. For those who are the most vulnerable, including those who cannot access remote education during school closures, school doors remain open.
Young people are at particular risk of unemployment due to the economic consequences of the pandemic. That is why the Government have put such an emphasis on employment support, a key part of which is the £2 billion Kickstart scheme that has created over 100,000 job opportunities so far for young people who are unemployed. Finally, last November’s spending review provided £3.6 billion of additional funding for the Department for Work and Pensions to deliver labour market support.
We cannot talk about the pandemic without talking about the additional support that we have put into our National Health Service. The Treasury has approved £52 billion for front-line health services to respond to the pandemic in 2020-21, including £9.5 billion of extra day-to-day funding for the NHS to care for Covid-19 patients while continuing to deliver routine services. The spending review recommitted to the historic settlement for the NHS. It also committed an additional £3 billion to the NHS in the coming year to support its recovery from the impacts of Covid-19. That will have wide-reaching benefits for older generations.
The original Select Committee report contained the following simple line:
“Intergenerational fairness should offer the opportunity of a fulfilling life.”
Giving people up and down the land the opportunity of a fulfilling life is a philosophy that this Government share and champion. It is embodied in our determination to level up and build back better. Achieving inter-generational fairness requires ambition, imagination and action, and the Government are committed to all three.
Lord Price (Con) [V]
My Lords, I once again begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord True, for his excellent chairmanship of the committee and for bringing us to this point. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, for having the foresight to propose the committee, which I and other members thoroughly enjoyed serving on.
The contributions from noble Lords today were thoughtful and challenging, particularly given the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I thank the Minister for responding so ably and in detail to the various points that were made. However, it strikes me that the position that we are in now is completely unprecedented; people use that term too frequently, but it really is.
I was delighted to hear the Minister talking at the end about our levelling-up agenda. That has to be just as much about intergenerational and intragenerational fairness as it is about geography. I very much hope that, as we come out of this pandemic and the Government face the enormous challenges that lie ahead, such as balancing the books and thinking about a whole-nation society, they can once again look at the committee’s recommendations and reflect on them and on the difference they could potentially make at such a challenging time.
With that, I would like to conclude by once again thanking the committee, all contributors and the Minister.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
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. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions confine them to no longer than 30 seconds and to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
SolarWinds Cyberattack
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the SolarWinds cyberattack, first reported on 13 December 2020; and what action they are taking in response.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, this is a complex and global cyber incident. There is an ongoing, cross-government response and we are working with international partners to fully understand its scale and any UK impact.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has pretty much repeated what the NCSC said back in December. This was one of the largest and most sophisticated cloud and software cyberattacks ever. SolarWinds’ customers included the Home Office, the MoD, the NHS, the Royal Navy, the Cabinet Office and several local authorities. Surely there has been time to evaluate and at least start countering the impact, identify the source and communicate with those potentially affected? Microsoft has been very transparent in its communications. Is it not time that the Government did likewise?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord will understand the sensitivities of these questions. I beg him to understand that work is ongoing and will take some time. However, we are already well placed to respond, thanks to our national cybersecurity strategy. Simply having SolarWinds does not automatically make an organisation vulnerable. The National Cyber Security Centre is working to mitigate any potential risk and guidance has been published on its website.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, the Government have a very impressive record on cybersecurity, but I note that our current public strategy is dated 2016-21. Can my noble friend set out when the Government plan to publish their forward strategy, 2021-25? Will that include the important role that the UK can play internationally in establishing cyber norms?
Lord True (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his comments. He is, of course, right that the current five-year strategy expires this year. The next iteration of the strategy is being developed and is expected to be published this year. This will set out the direction and ambition for the UK to be a continuing leader in cybersecurity, in line with the priorities of the integrated review. It will also set out how the UK will step up its efforts to shape the global rules, as my noble friend commented.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register. The response from the noble Lord has been complacent. A large number of systems in the national infrastructure use SolarWinds software and have been compromised. The House has not been told how many. Will the Intelligence and Security Committee be briefed on the full extent and implications? There is a wider question: does reliance on such commercial software solutions not create a single point of failure for our security and economy, as multiple systems—otherwise unrelated—can be penetrated simultaneously, potentially leading to a catastrophic collapse?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s response is anything but complacent. I had hoped that I had made that clear, but I will say it again. The Government’s response is not complacent. The NCSC is working to mitigate any potential risk. Actionable guidance has been published through its website. We urge organisations to take immediate steps to protect their networks. We will continue to update as we learn more.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
A congressional commission has given President Biden a 15-point list of priorities for reducing the probability of, and addressing recovery from, cyberattacks. Will the Government be referencing that plan as part of assessing UK preparedness, and discussing measures similarly with Parliament?
Lord True (Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point about international co-operation. She is quite right to say that malicious activity knows no boundaries. We regularly discuss cybersecurity with a range of international partners, including the G7, sharing our analysis of threats and our experience. I can give an assurance that we will continue to do so.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
FireEye, which uncovered the attack, judged that the tradecraft involved was consistent with state-sponsored actors. Microsoft’s Brad Smith described it as “a moment of reckoning”; it was “not ‘espionage as usual’” but
“an act of recklessness that created a serious technological vulnerability for the United States”
and beyond. Joe Biden has now promised to make cyber-security a top priority given the recent digital espionage. How have the Government responded to President Biden, since this does not appear to have been covered in the phone call that he had with the Prime Minister?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness has better information than I do on the call between the President and the Prime Minister. The Government are certain that cybersecurity is absolutely at the heart of our overall defence need and defence capability. I repeat: we will work with all friendly allies in that area. The UK considers attribution on a case-by-case basis, but I do not have anything further for the House at this stage.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the greatest lessons from SolarWinds is that the basics need to be right—password management, multifactor authentication and so on? Can he confirm that this is understood across the public sector and in all arm’s-length bodies, and that securing the supply chain is a constant and urgent need? Further, would he agree that in the UK we have an excellent cyber community, with private firms such as NCC and world-leading public institutions such as the NCSC? The Government should do everything to support this cyber industry so that it can do everything to protect us.
Lord True (Con)
My noble friend makes some important points. Obviously recognising the increasing importance of this area, the government security group is leading the development of a government cybersecurity strategy—which will sit underneath the national strategy —to deal with some of the issues my noble friend refers to. We also have a wide range of advice and support to help private sector organisations protect themselves.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, my question follows on from that of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and concerns resilience and the impact on operational technology, rather than simply IT, where experts say it may take months for difficulties to appear. Credible analyses suggest that the simple network management protocol—SNMP—fails to meet the tests of confidentiality, integrity and availability. It is not going to be replaced quickly, but are the Government at least looking at ways in which it can be reinforced across their own systems, while ensuring that that happens right across vital private systems in our country?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I apologise; I found it quite hard to catch every part of the noble Baroness’s question. I hope this is not an inadequate answer, but I am unable to comment on operational detail at this stage. However, as I have assured the House, the NCSC is working to mitigate all potential risks, and this work is ongoing.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, SolarWinds highlights concerns about the growing privatisation of cybersecurity attacks through a new generation of private companies, described in a recent Microsoft blog as
“akin to 21st-century mercenaries”
who offer
“the option for nation-states to either build or buy the tools needed for sophisticated cyberattacks.”
Already the US is battling one such company in their courts. Can we be assured that the Government’s review will consider whether our cyber capability and regulatory infrastructure is fit for purpose in the face of this emerging threat?
Lord True (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord on the importance of sustaining and improving that capability. The Government are certainly giving attention to that—seeking to promote cyber skills and to encourage a sustainable pipeline of homegrown cybersecurity talent, and protecting our critical infrastructure. That is a key part of the strategy going forward. The noble Lord is quite right that, currently, the demand for cybersecurity skills outstrips supply. We must mend that issue.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
My Lords, I used to write encryption software. Why does the trade and co-operation agreement recommend using encryption and hashing algorithms, which are both outdated and vulnerable to cyberattacks? It makes us look silly in the eyes of the technology world and just encourages hackers.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, sadly I do not share the technical capacity of the noble Lord, but I will ensure that he has a reply adequate to the level of his much higher understanding.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.
Integrated Review: New Ships
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the statement on the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy by the Prime Minister on 19 November 2020 (HC Deb, cols 488–9), how many of the new ships have been ordered; and, if none, when the first orders will be placed.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con) [V]
My Lords, the department is currently developing plans for a new class of frigate and research vessel to support UK interests. Following the concept phases, yet to be launched, programme and procurement strategies will be determined. However, the Type 32s will be UK-built—a clear demonstration of both this Government’s and the shipbuilding tsar’s commitment to supporting UK industry and to ensuring the Royal Navy continues to have the modern ships it needs.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. She will not be surprised that jam tomorrow has been a regular feature of defence reviews. I am concerned that the financial pressures the MoD is under, despite the welcome four-year settlement and additional funding announced last year, will affect build programmes and impact on the already small and ageing frigate force. The recent NAO review of the MoD equipment plan states that it remains “unaffordable”. The MoD estimates a £7.8 billion shortfall, but it could be as high as £17 billion. Leading up to the long-trumpeted integrated review, has there been any discussion about putting the capital costs of the deterrent submarine replacement once again outside of the defence budget, where it was until placed inside by Chancellor Osborne in 2010? It would resolve the MoD funding problem at a stroke.
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
My Lords, all MoD obligations and commitments, including the nuclear deterrent, are budgeted for in the MoD budget. While I understand the noble Lord’s concern about the cost of the equipment plan, I reassure him that the department is taking important steps to address that. I think he is looking through his glass half-empty, rather than his glass half-full. Quite simply, the recent financial settlement for the MoD and the Prime Minister’s commitment to new naval assets mean that not only will our fleet grow for the first time since World War II, but its high-end technological capabilities will allow it to provide a better contribution and to retain a first-class Navy up to 2040 and beyond.
Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Prime Minister in his Statement on the integrated review said that it will ensure a “renaissance of British shipbuilding” across the United Kingdom—in Glasgow and Rosyth, in Belfast, Appledore and Birkenhead—and it would guarantee jobs. This is most welcome, but how many jobs are guaranteed and, with 1.7 million unemployed, where is the focus on job creation?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
My Lords, the scale of the shipbuilding capacity contemplated for the next decade and beyond is a very positive message for jobs. We all acknowledge that when shipbuilding orders are placed, the companies and communities around them benefit. We have seen that to good effect on the Clyde, the Forth and other shipyard locations south of the border, and that is very welcome. The estimate of jobs for the new craft is difficult to determine at the moment. There is an estimate that the Type 32, for example, represents an investment in UK shipbuilding of over £1.5 billion for the next decade and that would create and sustain roughly 1,040 jobs.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, defence is a reserved matter; shipbuilding is not. Will the Minister tell the House what is the likely impact on shipbuilding procurement on the Clyde and the Forth if Scotland were to become independent?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
My Lords, our industrial partners in Scotland, principally BAE and Babcock, are trusted industrial partners doing what is acknowledged to be tremendous work in shipbuilding the Type 26 frigates on the Clyde and the Type 31 at Rosyth on the Forth. The plans for independence at the last referendum were shrouded in total uncertainty by those who advocated independence. The noble Baroness is right to raise the concern, because it is pretty clear that an independent Scotland would not be able to commission work to the scale that we currently see placed with yards in Scotland.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, defence’s integrated operating concept highlights the need to deploy fully our assets on a persistent basis. As we discussed last week in Grand Committee, this can only help defence’s contribution to global Britain. Given the obvious success of the deployment of HMS “Montrose” to Bahrain, where it will be for a number of years, does this mean that we will now see Royal Naval assets forward deployed, perhaps, to Gibraltar, Singapore or elsewhere?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
My noble friend raises an important point, which effectively goes to the heart of why we have Royal Naval assets and what we think their primary purpose is. I reassure him that we are actively expanding the model of permanent forward deployment of ships such as “Montrose”. For example, HMS “Forth”, like her predecessor “Clyde”, is currently forward deployed to the Falkland Islands; a further Batch 2 offshore patrol vessel “Medway” is operating in the Caribbean region; and the recent operations of HMS “Trent” in the Mediterranean and Atlantic have been centred on our permanent joint operating base in Gibraltar. We intend to build on this model in the coming months and it is a key consideration for the role of the new Type 31.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my relevant interests in the register. Despite the very welcome uplift in defence spending announced last year, the affordability of much of the new capability promised, such as new ships, rests on the need to retire current capabilities quite quickly—some arguably prematurely. Will the Minister inform the House of when such decisions will be made and which capabilities will be affected?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
My Lords, in the timetabling of shipbuilding and the estimated dates for taking delivery and for vessels being in service, a close eye is kept on the need to maintain our key operational obligations. That eye is vigilant and I reassure the noble and gallant Lord that the issues to which he refers are very much at the forefront of MoD thinking. We consult our industrial partners frequently to ensure a smooth transition.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
The Prime Minister said that he was breaking free from a vicious circle. He said that
“we ordered ever decreasing numbers of ever more expensive items of military hardware, squandering billions along the way”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/20; col. 488.]
He now wants to spend an extra £16.5 billion in the “teeth of the pandemic”, as he put it. Given that the Conservative Party has been in control of defence spending for over 10 years, what “important steps”, to use the Minister’s words, have been made to date in procurement and auditing to avoid further squandering?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
The noble Lord raises an important question. Of course, for five of those 10 years, his party was part of the coalition Government, sharing responsibility for the Ministry of Defence. His important point merits attention and we look carefully at how we now procure. For example, the model for the Type 31 procurement achieved a concept—a placing of order—extraordinarily quickly, because there had been a recognition that we needed to be much more effective and swift in our approach to procurement. The noble Lord raises an important point and I reassure him that it is very much before the MoD and we are applying measures to implement good practice.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My noble friend’s initial response referred to supporting UK industry. The fact is that the building of warships has been irregular and sporadic and it has been very difficult for companies to sustain a qualified workforce, because of the nature of the orders. Will the Minister assure the House that this time business and orders will be given and spread over the UK, including to Harland & Wolff in Belfast so that shipbuilding can be sustainable in the long-term, rather than reacting to sporadic and irregular orders?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
It is right to refer to what the Prime Minister said because he recognised what had been, frankly, a corrosive problem in the way in which the procurment of Royal Naval assets was embarked on. The National Shipbuilding Strategy identified the challenges and weaknesses to which the noble Lord has referred, and the strategy was clear that a much more stable approach had to be adopted in respect of UK shipbuilders. What is happening currently is clearly good news for UK shipbuilders, and the noble Lord has rightly raised the matter of cross-UK activity. I am pleased to say that, with Harland & Wolff taking over the Appledore shipyard, the Government are working closely with the company to understand better how we might support our shipbuilding industry throughout the United Kingdom. That is the commitment made by the Prime Minister and it is one that we will see being sustained by the recently announced intentions for Royal Naval assets.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.
Trees
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carrington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what guidance they are using to inform their plans to plant 30,000 hectares of trees per year.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. At the same time, I draw attention to my interests as declared in the register.
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 our manifesto we committed to increasing the planting of trees across the UK to 30,000 hectares per year by 2025, and we are working with the devolved Administrations to achieve this. We have consulted on a new England tree strategy which will be published in the spring. Responses to the consultation and ongoing advice from the Forestry Commission, charities, sector experts and others are informing the development of an ambitious plan to deliver our commitments in England
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. My particular concern, however, is the conflicting advice that growers are receiving. The Forestry Commission, which is the government expert on these matters, is encouraging a portfolio approach to combat climate change, including the importation of seed sourced from the benchmark of up to five degrees south, whereas the Woodland Trust, driven by biosecurity fears, is recommending only UK-sourced and grown plants. However, seed has been safely imported since time immemorial. Whom do we believe?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, the England tree strategy is designed to make sense of the Government’s commitment to identify the steps we will have to take in order to deliver on it and identify the funding streams. The priorities will be clearly set out in the England tree strategy, but, fundamentally, we will favour a mixed approach. However, we also favour an approach that recognises the biosecurity needs of this country and the fact that there are tree diseases queuing up at the border on the continent, waiting to cross the water and do damage to our trees.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support the Government’s tree planting scheme, bearing in mind that trees that are planted in upland areas will need a growth period of 30 years-plus in order to sequester carbon effectively. How will the Government ensure that the species that are planted will be capable of surviving in a warmer climate 30 years ahead?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The noble Lord makes an important point, but, as I have said, the England tree strategy will take a very long-term view. It will provide a vision for what our treescape should look like up to 2050 and probably beyond, even though the steps that it will identify relate to this Parliament. We need to and will be taking a very long-term view.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker.
Lord Astor of Hever (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as the owner of woodlands. What effective guidance will the Government give to ensure that these trees are not subsequently destroyed by grey squirrels?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
Invasive non-native species like grey squirrels and muntjac deer are a clear threat to our native biodiversity. They cost the economy around £1.8 billion per year and they impact negatively on our trees and woodlands. The Forestry Commission provides advice on maintaining red squirrel habitats and managing grey squirrels, while the Roslin Institute is researching into ways to breed infertility into females. This would provide a more humane way of reducing their numbers. In addition, we support work by the UK Squirrel Accord in developing an oral contraceptive to reduce the grey squirrel population.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, trees are essential to meeting the Government’s biodiversity and carbon targets. However, massive tree planting programmes have seen saplings being poorly planted and subsequently dying in large numbers. Can the Minister reassure us that the money to be put into the tree planting strategy will indeed deliver healthy adult trees in the future?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I can absolutely reassure the noble Baroness that the purpose of the England tree strategy is to deliver trees for the long term. It would be regarded by us and by everyone else as a failure were we not to deliver larger mature trees in the future.
Lord Sarfraz (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest through my work in conservation as set out in the register. Will my noble friend the Minister join me in congratulating the people of Pakistan on their successful initiative of planting 1 billion trees in their ongoing bold campaign to plant an additional 10 billion trees? Can he share with the House any practical lessons that we can learn from these programmes?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I absolutely and enthusiastically commend and celebrate Pakistan’s 10 Billion Tree Tsunami and the, I believe, tens of thousands of jobs that have been created on the back of it. It shows what is possible. Here in the UK, we are committed to increasing tree planting across the country by 30,000 hectares per year by 2025. That, too, will mean an increasing number of people working in the forestry and arboriculture sector. Our upcoming England tree strategy will map out that ambition and the steps we will need to take to realise it.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government’s tree planting ambition, which I fully endorse, is regarded as a key part of a land use strategy and that the need to address food security is also taken into account in identifying land to be planted? Can he further reassure us that, in optimising carbon sequestration, other benefits—to the ecosystem, the economic benefits of growing trees, and public access—will also be taken into account, and that a mix of species is encouraged so that regeneration might take place?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I strongly endorse the noble Lord’s comments. Trees are much more than carbon sticks; they provide biodiversity benefits, benefits in managing water flow and reducing pollution in the water system, in preventing or minimising the risk of flooding, in holding water for longer during the dry season, in amenity value for people, and so many benefits besides. Our tree policy and the incentives that are part of it will attempt to ensure that with public money we are purchasing as much solution as we possibly can. That, too, will be reflected in the new environmental land management scheme, which will replace the old common agriculture policy in a few years’ time.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]
My Lords, given the importance of tree planting to our climate change obligations, what legislative and enforcement powers do the Government envisage to ensure that tree planting targets have actually been met? Given that we have failed to meet the targets to date, will the Government commit to enshrining them in law via the Environment Bill?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is certainly true that we have failed to meet targets in the past, but that is why we are embarking on the England tree strategy and why we have provided numerous funding streams to ensure that we can practically deliver that ambition. We have the £640 million nature for climate fund. We have the Woodland Carbon Guarantee. In due course we will have the environmental land management system. We have the urban tree challenge fund, the trees outside woodlands project, and the green recovery challenge fund, which has just been doubled to £8 million. We have recently announced funding for 10 community forests from Yorkshire to Somerset, which will deliver around 500 hectares, with an investment of £12 million—and so on and so forth. We have the tools and the funding in place to deliver the trees that we need.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Corporation of London has warned against focusing just on increasing numbers of trees and thereby ignoring the role of wood pasture and slow-growing, long-lived landscape trees, which sequester more carbon than equivalent areas of woods plus pasture. Is this fact being taken into account as well as the amenity value of such areas?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]
The noble Baroness makes a really important point, which relates to an answer I gave earlier about the multiple benefits of trees and woodlands. One area that we are looking at closely is the important role of natural colonisation or natural regeneration of land in increasing woodland cover. It encourages natural establishment of local trees, species diversity and better adaptation to local conditions. It supports a wider range of wildlife but also reduces the risk of importing tree disease—a point made earlier. It also reduces plastic tree guards—a terrible blight in many parts of the country—and is, on the whole, low-cost.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, in the past half century, we have lost many trees to disease, including an estimated 20 million mature elm trees and a projected 100 million ash trees. What are the Government doing to ensure that we have sufficient research and expertise in tree diseases to keep ahead of future threats? Will the Minister tell us how many universities in England offer postgraduate education in tree pathology?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, I cannot provide a specific numerical answer, but will follow up with a written answer. We know that a large number of ash trees will become infected, but not all will die. We expect 1% to 5% of ash trees to show some tolerance to the disease, which is heritable, so we are funding research into a future breeding programme of tolerant trees. We are also conducting the world’s largest screening trials and will be planting the first tolerant trees this year.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Social Capital
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Haskel
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the report by the Office for National Statistics Social capital in the UK: 2020, published on 20 February 2020, what steps they are taking to rebuild social capital.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, social capital is the fabric that binds our communities together. Sources, such as the ONS and our Community Life COVID-19 Re-contact Survey, shape the steps that build communities. Covid shows that there is much to build on. The number of people who informally volunteer increased to 47% during the pandemic. This Government were elected to level up the country: our £4 billion levelling-up fund, our £1.5 billion shared prosperity fund and the £1.57 billion culture recovery fund, as well as a raft of other commitments, will help build social capital across communities, as we build back better.
Lord Haskel (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the ONS report says that the trend has not been good, and that was before the pandemic. The pandemic has forced us into more remote and flexible hybrid working, and the effect has fallen unevenly across society, increasing inequality. Research suggests that social capital boosts well-being and efficiency by reducing transaction and monitoring costs and building trust, but does this not then call for yet more effort on behalf of the Government? The current effort seems inadequate.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I genuinely disagree with the noble Lord’s last point. He is right that the impact of the pandemic has been uneven and hit the poorest hardest, and young people particularly hard, but I commend to him the Chancellor’s Statement at the spending review, which is a long list of major financial commitments.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
Churches and other faith communities bring together a diversity of people across all ages and backgrounds, and thus are often a strong source of social capital, as well as spiritual capital, as we have seen during the pandemic. Will the Minister say what Her Majesty’s Government are doing, both financially and in other ways, to enable local and faith communities to invest in and rebuild their social capital, as we emerge from this pandemic?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The right reverend Prelate makes an important point. My noble friend Lord Greenhalgh has been working hard, in his role as Faith Minister, to bring faith communities together. I am happy to share an obvious example with the House, which is the role that faith groups are playing to support the vaccine rollout, and to manage misinformation and disinformation about the impact of vaccines.
Lord O'Shaughnessy (Con) [V]
My Lords, while young people have mainly been spared the ravages of disease during the pandemic, they have suffered the economic and social consequences of the pandemic response, which we have had to follow, probably more than anyone else. Does my noble friend agree that we need to rebuild social capital and offer this group hope? Will she endorse the proposal of a funded year to serve, which was offered and suggested by the Repairing our Social Fabric programme at Onward? I declare my interest as the chair of that programme.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend about the impact the pandemic has had on young people. That is one of the reasons that the Chancellor announced a review of youth provision outside schools, which will be reporting in May this year. I thank my noble friend and his colleagues at Onward for providing excellent analysis and research on the year to serve, and I am happy to continue a further conversation with him about that proposal.
Lord Bird (CB)
Is the Minister aware of small organisations such as Social Echo, which works in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire? I declare an interest, because I am part of the team that put it together. It has been building on the enormous social kindness that broke out last year and is trying to stitch organisations and businesses together—the estate agent with the homeless organisation, et cetera. They are the backbone on which we have to rebuild the social capital that we are talking about.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord and thank him for his tireless work in this area. I share his recognition of the outpouring of social kindness. Our efforts, in the funding that we have provided the voluntary sector in particular, have predominantly focused on small local organisations, for exactly the reasons that the noble Lord sets out.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the fragmentation of society, starkly illustrated by the report, is the consequence of replacing the ethic of public service with that of private profit, of privatisation, outsourcing, austerity, the closure of libraries and youth clubs, ending rent controls and taking measures against collective bargaining, causing the real value of wages to stagnate and poverty for 4 million in working families. I assume that the Minister will confirm that there will be no U-turns on these damaging policies.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The issues that the noble Lord raises are more complicated, as I am sure he knows, than some of the limited examples that he has given. I commend to him the work that the Government are doing, particularly on social impact, the use of the Public Services (Social Value) Act in all government procurement and the emerging hybrid model of profit and purpose.
Lord German (LD) [V]
My Lords, the limited research available during this pandemic suggests that the increase in neighbourly kindness and community activity has been more prevalent in better-off areas. If the Government are intent on levelling up, how much of the levelling-up fund are they proposing to spend on social infrastructure, given that in most of the examples that I can see the Government are rightly dealing with economic disadvantage—that is, infrastructure and economic activity? How are the Government proposing to redress the imbalance in social capital?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right; it is not just about what we do and what we spend on but how we do it and who we involve. I point the noble Lord to the shared prosperity fund, on which we will get more detail in the spring, where there is a clear ambition to invest in civic institutions and community-owned assets and give that sense of connection and agency that every community deserves.
Baroness Sater (Con) [V]
My Lords, participation in voluntary organisations can be crucial in the development of social capital. Hearing the stories of communities coming together and volunteers—including those who have never volunteered before—helping their neighbours has been extraordinary. We must not lose all this good will and enthusiasm that we have seen over the last year. Could my noble friend the Minister reassure me that the Government are adapting and innovating fast enough to continue growing our national culture of volunteering?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend raises a very important point. The Government are absolutely committed to trying to capitalise on the surge of good will that she describes and build a real volunteering legacy. We are developing a new volunteering strategy and, within that, reviewing a number of options, including a volunteering passport, and really trying to understand where the need for volunteers is greatest.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is also Minister for Loneliness. Does this ONS report signal any adjustment to the Government’s current loneliness strategy, which was set up in memory of Jo Cox MP? If so, can she point to any policy areas that might be adjusted?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I start by saying that it is an enormous honour to be the Minister for Loneliness. My inbox on loneliness is fuller than on any other subject that I am responsible for, and it is something that absolutely touches every one of us. Our strategy will continue predominantly along the same lines; namely, talking about loneliness and the stigma, and making sure that funding goes to organisations that connect people. During the pandemic we have brought together a group of around 70 organisations in our tackling loneliness network that are advising us on particular themes in relation to young people, digital, place and older people.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
EU Ambassador to the UK: Diplomatic Status
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to grant full diplomatic status under the Vienna Convention to the European Union’s ambassador to the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we continue to engage with the European Union on the long-term arrangements for the EU delegation to the UK. I do not wish to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions. I assure noble Lords that we are committed to ensuring that the EU delegation, the head of delegation and staff have the privileges and immunities they need to function effectively. We want a relationship with the EU based on friendly co-operation. The EU delegation has an important role to play in this.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, this is about whether the Government are treating the new EU partnership with the seriousness it deserves, or whether they are squandering good will—indeed, being “petty”, in the words of the Conservative chair of the Defence Select Committee—at the expense of the UK’s real interests. Not only will the UK be negotiating for years to come to fill the gaps in the TCA, but any easing of the burden of Brexit red tape will require EU co-operation. Can the Minister therefore assure me that the Government are not acting in a misguided belief that they are acquiring leverage, since this will not work, and that they will grant ambassador status?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Baroness’s last point, as I indicated in my Answer, we are in discussions with the EU. I share her view: as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said, we want to be the best ally and the best partner to the European Union. I assure her that those discussions are being engaged in equally forcefully on our side to ensure that the outcome is optimum for both sides.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I admire the Minister personally, but surely he can see that the Government’s initial decision not to grant full status to the EU ambassador will be seen by the rest of the international community as peevish and vindictive. This being Burns Night, I commend to the Minister Robert Burns’s invocation:
“O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An’ foolish notion”.
Taking that to mind, in the discussions due to take place will he urge his fellow Ministers to reverse this blunder and do the honourable thing?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord’s poetic interlude and value his contribution, as ever. I assure him that the Government have not stated any public position in this regard, apart from the fact that we continue to negotiate and work with the EU on the long-term arrangements. As I said, we desire an optimum outcome that works for both sides.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Government’s decision is gratuitously offensive, not only to the EU authorities in Brussels and the other member states, but to Portugal, our oldest ally, since the ambassador, João Vale de Almeida, is a Portuguese diplomat? Can my noble friend also give us a concrete example of what benefit this unnecessary action will bring this country?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I listened very carefully to my noble friend, as I always do. I assure her that, as I mentioned, we are engaging with the EU on the long-term arrangements for the delegation, which will be by mutual agreement. We have not yet reached that point. I therefore do not wish to pre-empt those discussions, but I reassure her once again that the EU delegation and its head will have all the privileges and immunities they need for their mission to the United Kingdom to function effectively.
Lord Ricketts (CB) [V]
My Lords, the UK approved the decision taken by the Council of EU Ministers in July 2010 in setting up the External Action Service that EU delegations in third countries should have
“privileges and immunities equivalent to those referred to in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations”.
While we were a member state, 142 countries around the world granted this status to EU delegations so that they could do their work effectively. The nature of the EU has not changed. Why is there even an issue to be negotiated with the EU about its status in the UK?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, it is not for me to answer about what other countries offer the EU in terms of privileges and immunities. I can confirm that the EU delegation has the necessary privileges and immunities to enable it to carry out its work in the UK effectively. As I said—noble Lords will acknowledge that this is one of those occasions where I am, in general, repeating the key message I seek to deliver—we are currently live in negotiations with the European Union on this very issue. In no manner should I pre-empt the outcomes of those important discussions.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I detect an imminent U-turn. As the Minister knows, the UK has worked very closely with EU ambassadors in many countries to make sure that approaches are agreed and pressure is as effective as possible. Will the UK no longer recognise them as ambassadors, further weakening the UK’s ability to muster support for common approaches on issues, including human rights, an area for which he has personal responsibility?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that we will continue to work with EU representatives across the world, as well as the EU directly, on important priorities and our shared values, including human rights.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite keen to suggest that the difference between the status of nation state embassies and that of international organisations is minor, so can he explain why we are going through this process, which will waste not only the energy of his department but good will by insisting on the latter?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, when the noble Lord rises to speak I often look to his expression. On this occasion it was one of deep concern, accompanied by a frown. I assure him that I hear very clearly what he says. Of course a range of international organisations enjoy privileges and immunities in the United Kingdom, including those for their heads of mission. Because we are where we are with the European Union there is little more I can say at this juncture about the outcome of the discussions, but I assure him and others that we will continue to work with the EU as a key and important partner, and be the best friend and ally to the EU, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions.
The Earl of Kinnoull (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the very first article of the trade and co-operation agreement talks of
“good neighbourliness characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation, respectful of the Parties’ autonomy and sovereignty.”
Could the Minister explain how the Government’s current fence-top position is consistent with this core aspiration of our new and important relationship with the EU?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I agree with the premise and context of the noble Earl’s question, but I assure him that we are currently in discussions for the very reasons he has articulated. The EU is an important partner to the United Kingdom. At the end of the transition period, our intention is to be the best ally and friend to the EU. We will work in that respect, whether on its status here in the UK or on other key issues. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, it will remain an important partner in all respects.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con) [V]
My noble friend has said that he does not wish to pre-empt the negotiations, but I think it will be clear to him from the exchanges so far that not one Member of your Lordships’ House who has spoken so far is not very surprised to find that the status of an ambassador is part of the negotiations. I appreciate the difficult position that my noble friend is in, but may I suggest that this be sorted out as quickly as possible, so that we can live up to the intention of being the best friend and ally?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
As ever, I have listened to my noble friend very carefully and I take note of what he said.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB) [V]
Does not the Minister agree that it is time now to put aside gesture politics and to focus instead on developing the relations necessary to make a success of, for example, the G7 summit in Cornwall and the climate change summit in Scotland? In both of those, the European Commission will, whether we like it or not, have a major and important role to play.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Let me assure the noble Lord, who speaks with great insight and experience, that we are doing exactly that. We want to focus on the G7 summit and on the other important priorities that lie in front of us, including dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic and the rollout of the vaccines, and, equally importantly, our planning for the COP 26 in November in Glasgow.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the Minister, but does he understand that he is completely failing to convince the House of the need for any discussions about the status of the EU ambassador in Britain? Should he not be communicating this to the Foreign Secretary—who, although we have been urged many times by the Front Bench to move on from the Brexit debates and arguments, seems incapable of doing so in his search for cheap points that will go down well with his Brexiteer Back-Benchers?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I work closely with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, and, as I said in response to an earlier question, of course I will feed back the sentiments of your Lordships’ House. However, I can speak for my right honourable friend. Over the past year or so I have seen the importance he attaches to our colleagues across the EU and the close working partnerships and friendships he has formed, so I disagree with the noble Lord in both the final element and the premise of his question: that is not the case. We work very closely with the EU collectively, but also with key partners within the EU, most notably Germany and France. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has an important role in leading on those relationships.
Lord Robathan (Con)
May I belatedly—I understand that he has been here for some months—welcome the EU ambassador to the United Kingdom, as I welcome the ambassadors of every EU member state? Obviously, though, there is now scope for duplication, because no one will be quite clear where the lines are delineated between the EU ambassador and the ambassadors of the nation states. Can my noble friend tell me which member states have approached the Foreign Office and said that they wish to reduce their representation in the United Kingdom because of the arrival of the EU ambassador?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the EU’s representation and that of EU member states is very much a matter for the European Union and those member states.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, I follow on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan. We have talked about the importance of sovereign equality in our relations with the European Union, so do we intend to accept that our representation in Brussels should be reduced both in status and in size? As a point of comparison, the United States regards its representation in Brussels as one of its most important; it is also one of its largest. Do we not think that ours should be similar?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. I am sure that he will recognise, from his time as a Minister at what was the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the appointment of the new ambassador to the Permanent Mission at the European Union, who is a very capable official and acts at a very senior level. Indeed, he was centrally involved in the discussions on the new agreement that we have reached with our European Union friends.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, is the European Union a state? And is there any non-state organisation that has an ambassador in the United Kingdom? Does the Commonwealth Secretariat, for example, have an ambassador in London? Finally, can a state be represented by two ambassadors? In other words, if the European Union has an ambassador, do all 27 members of the European Union have to withdraw their ambassadors?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord has answered his own question, but, for the record, of course the Commonwealth does not have an ambassador. The Secretary-General is present here and the Commonwealth as an international organisation has a presence, but not in the manner of having an ambassador. Nor does any other international organisation have an ambassador to the United Kingdom. However, I stress that decisions about the EU and its representative voice, whether in the UK or elsewhere, are for the European Union—and of course, through various elements of the multilateral sphere, member states are represented, as is the European Union itself.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Vaccine Rollout
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, there was a very worrying story in the media this weekend, which I hope the Minister will use this opportunity to clarify. We learned that the MHRA and NHS Digital have issued official instructions on how to use NIVS, saying that where staff do not have an NHS number, the vaccine should not be given. One email sent to a hospital explicitly states that overseas nurses without NHS numbers, even on the front line, should not be vaccinated. And what about security staff, porters, student nurses coming from outside the country to work for us and staff such as cleaners? Through contracts, lots of people from BAME backgrounds and recent immigrants working in the NHS are not registered with GPs, do not use the NHS, and do not have an NHS number. How can it possibly make sense, from a public health point of view, not to vaccinate everyone on the front line?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for that question, because it will help me to clear up a misconception in this area. Having an NHS number is very important. We cannot know who has had the vaccine and who has not if we do not know what their NHS number is. That is extremely important for their own treatment; it is also best practice. As any clinical practitioner will tell us, it is imperative to know the identity of the person being treated. It is also very important for pharmacovigilance and for the research that will come on the back of the vaccine. If we were to vaccinate a large proportion of the population without knowing who they were, we could not do the research necessary. There will be some people who do not have an NHS number, and we have put in place protocols to ensure either that they can get an NHS number or that a workaround can be found. Those we are pursuing with haste. I emphasise to noble Lords that this is an opportunity to ensure that everyone in this country, whether a visitor or a resident, has an NHS number by the end of this programme.
Lord Scriven (LD) [V]
My Lords, here in Sheffield, approximately 45,000 people have been vaccinated, owing to the excellent work of our local GP hubs, but because of lack of vaccine supply, 10 out of 15 of those will be closed and will not be able to get the jab into vulnerable people’s arms again until the middle of next week. Yet the new Sheffield mass vaccination centre has opened today and has vaccine. Local GPs have asked me to ask the Minister why the distant megacentre has been given priority for vaccine supply over the local and effective GP hubs.
Lord Bethell (Con)
It is not a question of one place taking precedence over another. I take a moment to applaud and pay tribute to GPs in Sheffield, and to all those who have proceeded at pace and got through their allocation as quickly as they could. That is absolutely the right priority and the right approach, and it is how we are going to get through the population very quickly. However, some people will get through their list more quickly than others, and it would be a mistake then to start asking them to move down the list when there are still those with very high priority who need to be vaccinated. Although I understand that it may be frustrating for a GP to stand idle, those are the practicalities of what we are doing. The mass vaccination centres are essential to deal with the very large numbers of people that we plan to vaccinate over the next few months. That is why the Sheffield vaccination centre is such good news.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support the Government’s utilitarian public health approach to the spacing of vaccine doses, but does the Minister accept that the argument is dependent on an understanding of the full implications of different dosage regimes, and that a lack of specific data on this particular point in relation to the Pfizer vaccine is fuelling concerns? Will the Government now undertake research on this specific point as part of a vaccine rollout programme, to underpin robust and well-supported policy implementation, both here and in many other countries that could benefit from this data?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the amount of research that we have on the Pfizer vaccine and all other vaccines is huge. Most, though not all of it, is published. I assure the noble Baroness that we have all the data needed to make the decision that we have. She is right that we are doing the pharmacovigilance that is necessary to understanding the efficacy of the vaccine and any possible side effects. That research will be shared with international partners in the way that she suggests.
Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Prime Minister revealed on Friday the great news that 10% of all adults have now received their first dose of the Covid vaccine, with two-thirds of elderly residents of care homes now meeting that first milestone. This wonderful effort now needs to be matched by a strategy to ensure that it is not only the elderly who are protected but the young, with a commitment to reopening our schools as soon as possible. Social mobility gains that have given a lift to disadvantaged children over the past decade are at risk of being wiped out by Covid lockdowns. The gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers has already increased by almost half, with 12% of 11 to 18 year olds not having access to the internet at home. Given that the rollout of the vaccine to the most vulnerable is set to reduce deaths by 88% by mid-February, what steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking to increase NHS capacity to ensure that schools can open as soon as possible?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, it is indeed very good news. I pay tribute to the work of my noble friend and of the Legatum Institute in championing the need to address social inequality. She rightly draws attention to the horrific impact that this pandemic and the associated lockdowns are having on social mobility. It is a massive priority for us. The problem that we are wrestling with is not just hospitalisation but the transmission associated with schools, but I assure her that this is a number one priority for us.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
I wish to make two points and I draw attention to my interests as listed in the register. First, I am very concerned about prisons. There are reports that about 71 prisoners have died, and the number of prison staff who have tested positive continues to rise alarmingly. There is great flux within a prison, with staff coming and going, and those being released from prison and those coming into prison. Will the Government consider prioritising the vaccinating of prisoners and those who work in prisons? Secondly, I add my voice to those calling for teachers and early years staff to be prioritised. Schools are open and our dedicated teachers and early years staff must be able to continue their work safely and not be off sick, if we are to do the right thing by our children.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is entirely right to highlight prisons, and I share her deep concern in this area. I pay tribute to the Prison Service for keeping Covid out of prisons for nearly a year. It has done an amazing job, and we should all be very pleased with the incredible protocols that have been put in place to save our prisons. However, she is entirely right that we have a problem on our hands. It is a major priority for the Prison Service, which is bringing in testing protocols and, if necessary, will look at other measures to ensure that prisoners and those who work in prisons are safe.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
I want to follow up on the answer that the Minister gave to my noble friend Lady Thornton. I was quite shocked by his reply, because I am quite sure that most people working in the National Health Service who do not have a number are probably the lowest paid, from black and ethnic-minority communities, or temporary staff—the very people who are just as much on the front line as doctors and nurses. I do not think that being assured that there will be a protocol, or a workaround, is adequate. Can the Minister say what protocol there will be, what priority it will have, and how soon all of this will be communicated to the people who are affected?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that it is communicated on the front line immediately. I did not have a valid NHS number until a week ago: it took me a couple of days to get one, but it was provided extremely promptly. I am hopeful that anyone who is lacking an NHS number can get one extremely quickly when they apply.
Baroness Hollins (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for all his hard work on this subject. As he says, the vaccination rollout rightly aims to prioritise the people who are most vulnerable to Covid, but this mainly focuses on age. On the BBC news yesterday, we heard directly from several people with learning disabilities about their well-founded worries concerning the Public Health England data, which shows that they are six times more likely to die from Covid. Given this, and the fact that only 40% of people with learning disabilities reach the age of 65, does the Minister agree that relying on a strategy of vaccinating them at the same age as other people magnifies their existing health inequalities and discriminates by failing to recognise their increased risk?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the JCVI looked at this very question in great detail. It is very conscious of discrimination, but its focus is on morbidity. Its judgment, which I entirely back, is that age, more than anything else, is the driver of morbidity. That is why the prioritisation is structured in the way that it is. Those who are CEV are also prioritised. Many of those who are most vulnerable and who also have learning difficulties will qualify under the CEV threshold. However, I have passed her arithmetic to the vaccine taskforce. She makes a very good point that those with learning difficulties and autism have a different life profile and die at an earlier age. I have asked the system to ensure that this arithmetic has been considered in the prioritisation list. I will be glad to reply to her when I have the answer.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask all Members to respect social distancing.
I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted.
During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time. 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 in a group to a Division must give notice, either in the debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.
Domestic Abuse Bill
Monday 25th January 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 View all Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 124-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Committee - (25 Jan 2021)
Baroness Hamwee
“(a) B is aged 16 or over and is personally connected to A,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would expand the definition in the bill to include a relationship where one person was under 16 and the other was over 16.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am very conscious of being the first speaker at this stage of a Bill which has been so widely welcomed, and which so many people, outside and inside the House, are ambitious to amend—or maybe I should say expand.
There are some niggles, but I do not think that any noble Lord is planning to oppose any clause standing part of the Bill. That is very unusual. Often, giving notice of an intention to oppose a clause standing part is not to signal opposition but to probe or interrogate the Government on what lies behind the printed words or how the Government intend them to be fulfilled. The Bill has been a long time in the making, so the Government have had a lot of time to refine it.
This is not the moment for a Second Reading speech—Committee is the stage at which we are workmanlike—but I want to make one general point, which is to thank all the organisations and individuals who have contacted us and informed our thinking. Their hard work and determination are impressive. We will be anxious to do justice to them, but I fear that it will not be possible to credit them by name. Nevertheless, I hope they appreciate that we appreciate that this is a collaborative effort, in which they are partners.
My noble friends Lady Burt and Lord Paddick are on the Front Bench for this Bill but, by chance, I have the privilege of moving the first amendment. I should declare what I regard as interests, because they certainly affect how I think about the issues. For many years, although some time ago, I was a board member and then chair of Refuge. I am currently a member of the board of Safer London, whose work with children and young people can mean addressing family and other personal connections, including working with young people to help them understand what good relationships are.
So, to Amendment 1. There has been debate about the abuse of children but this amendment is not about that. The focus of the Bill is the abuse of partners, and we now have Clause 3, which concerns the impact on children who witness that abuse.
I have from time to time heard reports of abuse by children of adult relations. One would hope that ways outside legislation would be used to deal with such behaviours, but I would be grateful if the Minister could explain to the Committee how the Government regard, for instance, violence or threats of violence by a 13 year-old towards his mother or grandmother. A teenager living in the same household as a grandparent could be in a position to extract money or valuable items from the grandparent. Noble Lords can imagine various reasons: how this might be prompted by a need for drugs, or to get money for a gang, as gang members often regard their gang as their family. We want to ensure that the Bill is comprehensive, and the intention behind the amendment is to ask why it applies only when both individuals are 16 or over.
I realise that it is necessary, in proposing a change to the scope of a Bill, in a non-technical sense, that one should ask oneself: what follows? Should it be a protection order or qualifying for statutory support? Nothing is achieved by extending the categories of people to whom the Bill applies simply as an expression of concern without also considering what is achieved in practice, although it may help us all to understand how other, existing, legislation covers their situations. This is a probing amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my interests as listed in the register. I listened with great interest to the noble Baroness’s explanation of this first amendment. I bring to the House a different situation that in my view is covered by the amendment, but which the noble Baroness has not put forward. Like many of the groups I am involved with, I am very opposed to marriage under the age of 18. There is no doubt that a number of teenage marriages involve domestic abuse. It is important to recognise that, in such marriages, those under 18 are as much at risk as anyone else. Later, I will deal through amendments of my own with a situation I am particularly concerned about: young people both under and over 18 who are forced by coercive control or physical abuse into an unwanted marriage that they—she, generally, but sometimes he—do not want to enter. That is why I want to raise this issue as perhaps another probing part of the amendment: to recognise this group of young people aged under 18.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I restate my interests in respect of this Bill. Noble Lords will recall the story of the farmyard animals that come up with the idea of rewarding the farmer with an egg and bacon breakfast, to which the pig responds to the chickens, “I’d be committed to this; you’d only be involved.” As a former police officer who dealt with countless cases of domestic abuse during my service, and as a survivor of domestic abuse myself, I very much feel like the pig when it comes to this Bill.
Amendment 1 questions why both perpetrator and victim have to be 16 or over. We understand that, if the victim is under 16, the offence would be child abuse rather than domestic abuse, but not if the perpetrator is under 16 and the victim over 16. For me, the acid test is whether someone is being placed in the intolerable position of not feeling safe in their own home as the result of the abuse. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee has described, this might be the result of the actions of someone who is under 16—elder abuse of a grandmother by a grandchild, for example.
The Minister will acknowledge that increasingly younger children are becoming involved in county lines drug dealing. One of the many worrying aspects of county lines is how children are becoming violent towards their own family members at home as they become embroiled in the savage and ruthless culture of drug gangs, particularly when they are challenged about their behaviour by a parent or guardian. My noble friend described the amendment as probing. On reflection, I believe that it may become increasingly necessary. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Bill currently defines domestic abuse as involving two people aged over 16. As has been said, the amendment would expand this definition to include a relationship where one person was under 16 and the other over 16. It appears that the definition would apply where the victim was over 16 but the perpetrator was not. We have doubts about the definition in the Bill being changed in this way, but I understand from what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said that this is a probing amendment.
Teenage relationships, and the victims of teenage relationship abuse, have specific needs, which should be addressed through a separate strategy tailored to them and recognised as an issue separate from both child abuse and the abuse that takes place between adults. As I said, we recognise that this is a probing amendment, but our concern is that if the age of the perpetrator in the definition is lowered—as appears to be the effect of the amendment in the circumstances set out in it—we would end up prosecuting and treating some perpetrators under 16 as, in effect, adults, which is not a road we believe we should go down. However, the issue of younger person or teenage abuse raised by the amendment is an important one, which the Government should address through a specific strategy and guidance for this group of victims and perpetrators. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in thanking all the many organisations that have collaborated with us on the Bill to date; communication has been incredibly constructive in virtually all cases. As she said, no one demurs from supporting this Bill; the question for debate is how we get there. I am grateful to her for affording us the opportunity to debate the minimum age of 16 in the definition of domestic abuse.
The amendment would expand the definition of domestic abuse to include a relationship in which person A, the abuser, is aged under 16 and person B, the victim, is aged 16 or over. Clause 1 as drafted provides that the behaviour of person A towards another person, B, is domestic abuse if
“A and B are each aged 16 or over and are personally connected to each other, and … the behaviour is abusive.”
As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out, abuse in relationships where the victim or both parties are under 16 years of age will be treated as abuse of a child and subject to existing criminal offences, and legislation relevant to safeguarding procedures will be followed. In cases where the abuser is under the age of 16 and their victim is over the age of 16, as in this amendment, appropriate safeguarding responses will be followed which, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has just pointed out, seek to avoid the criminalisation of children.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, of course I will withdraw my amendment at this point. However, before I beg leave to do so I want to say that, as my noble friend Lord Paddick has pointed out, what goes on in society changes from time to time. At the moment it is county lines. We need safeguarding responses—I would not dispute that for a moment—but we need to look at what is available for safeguarding and what helps with prevention. I mentioned orders. I will also mention domestic violence protection notices and particularly—depending on what happens as we consider later amendments to the Bill—statutory community support. I would have thought that that might have a role, but would not be available if we confined the definition to two people over 16. I look on those measures as part of a raft of preventive measures. I will continue to think about this as we proceed through the Bill, as obviously this is not divorced from the rest of the Bill. I am not going to attempt to answer the noble and learned Baroness, who brings a different concern to the same wording. For the moment, I beg leave—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
Before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, I had a very late request from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to have a word after the Minister. Can we please hear from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick?
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I want to make a general point: the point of speaking after the Minister is to challenge something that she has said. That may be in the very last sentence that she speaks. Therefore, there should be a pause to allow people who want to challenge the Minister to email before we go to the mover of the amendment.
The Minister says that the perpetrator age should not be less than 16 because the Government want to avoid criminalising children. How is that consistent with the approach that they are taking in the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill? They want to increase penalties for children under that Bill, but apparently do not want to criminalise children in this.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I apologise to the noble Lord. Would the Minister like to come back on that particular point?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. We might have got the choreography slightly wrong, but I am always amenable to answer questions, even though the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has clearly signalled her intention to withdraw her amendment.
I am not diminishing the seriousness of this compared to children who may involve themselves in terrorism. I will not be dealing with the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill, but the noble Lord will know our other legislation—for example, one of the central premises of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 was to ensure that children who took a wrong step in their early years were not criminalised for the rest of their lives. Terrorism has very serious implications on people’s lives—not that domestic abuse does not. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Parkinson, who is sitting beside me, will elucidate further on that when we get to that Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I now apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Would you like to complete your speech please? Do you wish to withdraw your amendment?
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
Before I do, I would like to say that I asked about this problem; I do not think my noble friend knows that. It is nobody’s fault in the Chamber, but we might write some sort of pause into the procedure. I have asked if the Procedure and Privileges Committee can consider that, because I was caught out last week. I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 2. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the Clerk during the debate and anyone wishing to press this or the other amendment in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 2
Baroness Meyer
“( ) parental alienation;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the other to Clause 1 in the name of Baroness Meyer is designed to ensure that in cases where one parent alienates a child from their other parent, which harms the child’s welfare, this is treated as a form of domestic abuse of the other parent.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 2 and 4. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Watkins of Tavistock, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for their support.
I would like to start by telling you a story. In 1994 a mother—a British citizen—sent her two sons aged nine and seven to spend their holiday with their father in Germany as per their custody agreement. The children never returned. After four months of separation, in which the father blocked all contact between mother and sons, even on the telephone, they met again at a German family court. The older son greeted the mother by hitting and kicking her. The younger son turned his head away and refused to look at her. When they had set out for Germany, they had been normal loving sons.
This was the beginning of a long separation that lasted for nine years—until the day when the older son, having reached his majority, came to London with his younger brother to see the mother. During those nine years, the mother had a few snatched meetings with her children—a total of 24 hours and always in Germany in the presence of a third party. The children were not allowed to visit her, and the mother was never allowed to reach them on the telephone, even to wish them a happy birthday or a merry Christmas.
The mother went to the courts time and again to find justice—to no avail and to her financial ruin. She was repeatedly blocked by the argument that her sons did not want to see her any more. The argument was sustained by the children’s apparent hostility towards the mother, a hostility instilled by the father’s relentless denigration of the mother and her family.
That mother was me. This is the reality of parental abduction: my lived experience. Today, unlike many fathers and mothers who have suffered in the same way, I am happily reunited with my sons. But make no mistake—it has been a very difficult road. It took more than our years of separation to repair our relationship, and it has scarred me for life. It also led me to create a charity to fight the evil of missing and abducted children and the use of children as weapons of war by one parent against the other. These campaigns led me to be appointed to this noble House and compel me to address this issue today.
There is much debate about parental alienation. Cafcass, which has first-hand experience of dealing with children, defines it as a situation where
“a child’s resistance or hostility towards one parent is not justified and is the result of psychological manipulation by the other parent.”
It is precisely this type of psychological manipulation that should be explicit in the Bill. Parents in abusive relationships should not have to endure what I did, and neither should their children; that is the purpose of these amendments.
There is an argument that these matters fit better in legislation dealing with child abuse. I do not agree—we must distinguish means from ends. The Serious Crime Act 2015 condemns coercive, controlling behaviour in a relationship; what behaviour could be more coercive and controlling than a parent using a child as a means to overwhelm the other parent? It is domestic abuse, fair and square. As his Honour Judge Stephen Wildblood QC put it:
“The problem with Parental Alienation is that it’s not about the child at all. It is about the adults. It is about adult issues. It is not child-focused ... It’s using children as an instrument of that parent’s skewed emotions; it is in every sense wrong”.
I am aware that some in this House are concerned that parental alienation is used by men as a tool to silence victims of domestic abuse, but that is why we have judges: to give careful consideration to all the evidence and distinguish truth from falsehood. Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 tells us to treat the child’s welfare as “paramount”. How can judges possibly do that if they cannot tell the difference between a genuine case of parental alienation, another concocted by an abuser-parent and yet another where a child is justified in accusing a parent of abuse?
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, first, I want to apologise for my intervention on Amendment 1, which was quite inappropriate. I stupidly misunderstood, and I apologise.
I support Amendments 2 and 4. False allegations, of the severity of which the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, has spoken, are abusive to the other parent, who is the victim—and, of course, they have extremely adverse effects on the children. As a former family judge, I found those cases not only very serious but distressing. In some, it was impossible to achieve an outcome of a relationship between the child and the parent whom the child had been taught to loathe, despise and have nothing to do with. It was very distressing.
It is important, however, to recognise that these are a minority of cases. It is equally important to recognise, as the noble Baroness said, that they can be used as a defence against genuine allegations of domestic abuse. I got an email this morning setting out how a woman had clearly been abused but the man kept telling the court that it was parental alienation and he was not prepared to accept that he had been guilty of abuse.
In the majority of cases, the reason for non-contact or limited contact between a parent and their child should be the implications of domestic abuse. It is important, however, to leave discretion over contact and looking at parental alienation to the judges. The judicial college might consider whether for some judges, at some levels—not the High Court—there is adequate judicial training in this complicated subject. A little more time might be spent teaching magistrates, district judges and circuit judges a little more about it.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill, which is designed to help victims of domestic abuse across the country with comprehensive measures that introduce enhanced protections against, and recognition of the suffering of victims of, many forms of abusive behaviour. I support the aims of the Bill and, alongside many victims, eagerly await its introduction.
I rise to speak to Amendments 2 and 4, to which I have added my name. It is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and I thank my noble friends on the Front Bench for engaging with us on this issue. I hope we may continue discussions before Report.
The Bill’s first four clauses provide a broad definition of domestic abuse and concentrate on behaviour rather than definitions or syndromes. These amendments were excellently introduced by my noble friend Lady Meyer. The whole Committee must have been moved by her explanation of the way this issue has impacted on her. Clause 1(3) identifies psychological, emotional and other abuse but does not mention the behaviour described in these amendments, which we call alienation or, specifically here, parental alienation. If children are used as a weapon by an abusive parent against another parent and the wider family, this is surely domestic abuse and belongs in the Bill.
A network of leading international and UK experts in several professional fields, after consultation with other professionals and stakeholders involved with parental alienation and child psychological abuse, have produced a paper which we are happy to share with interested noble Lords. It concludes that parental alienation is most readily described as a range of behaviours and is not a syndrome, as some people like to call it. It is both child abuse and domestic abuse, but not a diagnostic label, which supports our aims of identifying it in the Bill.
Parental alienation has been confirmed by Cafcass as being both child abuse and domestic abuse, involving clear coercing and controlling behaviour. Fathers, mothers and other family members can be perpetrators and victims, but the children are always the victims. In its helpful briefing to Peers, Cafcass explains that parental alienation is a description of an array of behaviours, processes and outcomes when a child’s resistance or hostility towards one parent is not justified and is the result of psychological manipulation through a range of abusive behaviours by the other parent.
I recognise that there is controversy surrounding this issue, which saddens me. My noble friend Lady Meyer dealt with a number of the issues that have concerned us, including what appears rather a one-sided assessment of the case against parental alienation. Of course, it is possible that abusive fathers will use this in the context of family courts to commit further abuse against a mother trying to protect her children, but the Bill is about domestic abuse; fears of allegations being falsely made are inherent in much legislation yet surely cannot be a reason to decline to legislate.
Responsible legislators must not be biased in favour of one group or another but should be mindful of the broad sweep of issues that need to be considered. Even if there are egregious examples of women being abused by this kind of alienation, there are many men, and children and wider families, who also need protection against this abuse. It is important that each allegation is carefully examined by the court at an early stage. Sometimes, there is both psychological abuse by alienation and physical or sexual abuse in the same family. But there is a lack of reliable evidence—as opposed to anecdotes by parents who may regard court decisions wrong—that men or women are more likely to raise false allegations, or that courts systemically prefer fathers or mothers. Therefore, what is relevant, and beneficial to the Bill, is to require proper exploration of alienating behaviours, so that these can be observed by mental health professionals, together with family judges and lawyers across the UK in identifying cases where parental alienation or alienating behaviours have occurred.
I agree with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that it would be helpful to have enhanced judicial training to identify and understand these behaviours, but it is essential that qualified professionals assist the court with assessing whether there is this type of abuse and identifying problems of alienation at an early stage, before the psychological impact becomes ingrained in children and does dreadful long-term damage, which has been described as being associated with this issue. I hope we may discuss this further with other noble Lords and the ministerial team to make progress on this matter for Report.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships’ House for not being able to speak at Second Reading. In the 10 years that I have had the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships’ House, I have from the start focused on the despicable behaviour of those who harass, stalk, and coercively control their current or former partners. This Bill recognises so many of the agonies that victims of domestic abuse have faced, whether male or female, including by at last recognising that children themselves can also be victims of domestic abuse and coercive control.
Over those years, we have succeeded in getting much of this behaviour recognised in the criminal system through reforms of the stalking laws and clear definitions of coercive control, but there remain problems in both the family and private courts. I was pleased to hear the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, mention again the need for judicial training on this, as what I am going to say reflects the fact that far too few judges have had the training they need to understand these difficult and complex issues. That is why, I am afraid, I am going to disagree with Amendments 2 and 4, despite the moving speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, and the fact that child abduction can never, ever be right.
Your Lordships’ House has a special role in scrutinising legislation, a duty that it carries out with due care. I am sure that the movers of this amendment are sincere in their belief that such a definition would be helpful, but I and others think that it would not be, principally because parental alienation remains a controversial subject, as previous speakers have mentioned. There is no commonly accepted definition, no reliable data on its prevalence, and a lack of peer-reviewed and robust academic studies to give confidence in any such definition.
It is worth noting that these moves are unanimously opposed by all of the victims’ and domestic abuse commissioners, as well as domestic abuse charities, and I thank them all for their briefings. They tell us that there is worrying evidence that the concept of parental alienation has gained a significant foothold in the UK family courts and is already being used in judgments relating to child safety. Worse, there is also alarming evidence that the fears of false allegations of parental alienation are becoming a barrier to victims of abuse telling the courts about their experience. The Ministry of Justice report, Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases, published in June 2020, makes that plain.
The report received deeply concerning evidence that fears of parental alienation are directly supressing allegations of domestic abuse. The review received several submissions which highlighted how
“victims were advised by professionals, including their own lawyers, not to raise domestic abuse because the courts would take a negative view of this and it may be used against them as evidence of parental alienation or hostility to co-parenting.”
The strength and dominance of allegations of parental alienation are, I am afraid, now beginning to shape the legal advice being given to survivors of domestic abuse and coercive control.
Among its recommendations, the Ministry of Justice report says that
“the Child Arrangements Programme should incorporate a procedure for identifying abusive applications and managing them swiftly to a summary conclusion.”
and that:
“Fears of false allegations of parental alienation are clearly a barrier to victims of abuse telling the courts about their experiences.”
Inexplicably, the phrase “parental alienation” has been included in draft statutory guidance for the Bill as a form of coercive control, despite not appearing anywhere in coercive control legislation. Will the Minister ensure that this reference to parental alienation is also removed from the draft statutory guidance?
Why are there such concerns about parental alienation on the part of those who are experts in domestic abuse? They are seeing a direct relationship between allegations of parental alienation and potentially unsafe child contact or residence arrangements. Some parental alienation experts recommend dramatic measures to treat this alienation, including a 90-day deprogramming window in which the child is placed with the allegedly alienated parent and is allowed no contact the with alleged alienator. In reality, this means that many children are placed with parents they are afraid of—whether that is rational or not—who are alleged abusers and whom the children often directly state opposition to living with. This is a deeply distressing intervention for the child and the parent who may have lost custody, who is given no knowledge of their child’s welfare during this time.
There are experts whose views I trust, and whom I hope the House will hear. Nicole Jacobs, the designate domestic abuse commissioner, has said:
“I am increasingly concerned about the potential for the idea of ‘parental alienation’ to be weaponised by perpetrators of domestic abuse to silence their victims within the Family Court. So much more must be done to improve the understanding of domestic abuse within the Family Court, which is the single most common issue that victims and survivors contact me about. I have heard of some terrible examples where the Family Court fails victims and survivors of domestic abuse, and addressing these will be a top priority for me and my Office.”
Dame Vera Baird, the Victims’ Commissioner, says:
“The government has now recognised that children are victims of domestic abuse not bystanders and that they too suffer harm from the abusing parent. That cannot now be ignored and their future entrusted to a parent who has already harmed them. Any courts who entertain this notion”
of parental alienation
“will do huge damage to justice and damage to large numbers of children who are already suffering from their abuser’s behaviour. This Bill must not recognise any validity in this groundless notion. In every case about the welfare of children the evidence is what matters. The courts must guard against the well-known phenomenon that they are used as a further tool of abuse by manipulative domestic abuse perpetrators”.
The Women’s Aid Federation of England says:
“Parental alienation is increasingly used in the family courts, but there is a dearth of robust evidence to back up the concept or reliable data on its prevalence. The ‘pro-contact’ culture in the family courts means that parents are expected to facilitate contact, even if they have concerns about safety. It also means that allegations of parental alienation—where one parent is accused of encouraging their child to resist contact with the other parent—can be taken more seriously than allegations of domestic abuse and other forms of harm. Theories of parental alienation should never be accepted without analysis of the impact they have on survivors of domestic abuse and their children.”
It is also worthy of note that, having adopted a definition of parental alienation, the World Health Organization has now agreed to remove any reference to it.
I agree with the concerns expressed in the Ministry of Justice report, by the various commissioners working with victims of domestic abuse and coercive control, and by the organisations supporting victims. I hope that the Minister will also agree that there is no place in this Bill or its statutory guidance for a concept without a robust evidential basis, or one that can be used by perpetrators to continue their abuse of their former partner and children.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I added my name to these amendments because I feel strongly that we are not picking up domestic abuse early enough in the process. Part of that is a failure to identify and become aware of the forms of abusive behaviour for what they are. One of the most important aspects of the break-up of a relationship is the effect on children, as they can be terribly damaged through that process. The noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, has given us a moving description of her experiences, and I pay tribute to all those who have written to me for and against these amendments. I respect what they say.
My strong feeling is that by the time domestic abuse cases get to the courts, views are already polarised, resentments are deep-seated and entrenched, and an intensely adversarial legal system is in play. Anything not proscribed by law seems to be fair game, and the outcomes are all too often a matter of sweeping up the broken fragments of family relationships as tidily as possible.
We know that one of the problems is parental alienation. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has said; her experience is far and away ahead of mine. One of the reasons it is not picked up at an early enough stage is the absence of an identity that would trigger intervention and appropriate support long before matters came to the formal attention of the police or the jurisdiction of the courts. We know that this is one of the reasons why certain domestic abuse instances are not recorded at all. I acknowledge that the spectrum of such abusive behaviour is enormous, labyrinthine and often a matter of controversy among experts, but signposting this for earlier intervention seems an unassailable point.
I have seen, read and listened to objections to the term “parental alienation”, but lack of definition or labelling—or, for that matter, the awareness that goes with that—does not make the problem cease to exist. It is quite clear that it does. As I just said, I see as one of the problems the nature of the judicial and adversarial process that must be dealt with. I make no criticism of the judiciary, which has to pick its way through enormously complex issues and try to find the best way forward for the parents and particularly the children. It concerns me that, if we do not have a definition, the abuses that have been described and the excuses, particularly of male partners against female partners that the female is indulging in parental alienation of children, will not go away or in some way become less likely.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, suggests that parental alienation is readily identifiable. I cannot speak to that but, from my own observations, I agree. From what I have seen from many who have written to me, it is an identifiable condition. I appreciate that it is complex and multifaceted, but I think we all know, on a results basis, what it means in practice.
This is not just a definition for lawyers and the courts of when things have got to that terrible stage of events when everybody has dug themselves into their positions and every sort of lever and form of manipulation is being used in the cause by one side or the other, but a definition for everybody—particularly upstream of those situations where, as the Domestic Homicide Review has identified, available signs indicated that there were problems which could and should have been picked up. That keeps cropping up. I believe the same is true for parental alienation, as a component in what is quite clearly a larger pattern of abuse.
That is why I support these amendments—primarily because children are caught in the middle here. They are being used as part of the process of leveraging some sort of advantage by one partner against the other. That must stop. It must be identified as offensive, save in circumstances where it is demonstrated that it is being done with the best interests of the child unequivocally in mind—for instance, where there is clear evidence of physical or other sorts of abuse of that nature and something must be done. That is why I support these amendments and have put my name to them.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support the amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, and others. She spoke very powerfully from her own experience, but it is obvious even to those with only limited experience, drawn from those they know are going through divorces, that how a parent speaks of and encourages their children to speak of the partner from whom they are estranged is one of the challenges facing a divorcing couple, if not the major one.
A parent who loves their child wants not only to keep their child’s love; in return, they want that child to think and speak well of them. There must be a severe temptation, even for the most altruistic parent, if they believe their partner has terrible faults, to draw these to the attention of their children. Thank goodness there are very many divorcing couples who resist that temptation. They want good parenting to continue after the divorce by both parents; whatever they feel, they try not to let this influence their child in their relations with the other parent. However, the temptation to speak negatively about the estranged partner to their children must be severe in some cases, and sadly some actively encourage hostility. We know that a child’s expressed wishes can sometimes be the result of indoctrination by one parent against the other to sever the child’s relationship with the targeted parent.
I have read the evidence of Women’s Aid and listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. They have worries about these amendments. They are properly concerned that such amendments, if passed, might result in allegations of child abuse not being taken as seriously as they should, and clearly that argument needs to be weighed with due seriousness during the passage of this Bill. However, it seems to me that what is put forward in Amendments 2 and 4 does not in any way depend on evidence that something is discredited, but on a realistic recognition of how embattled couples too often operate. I believe that, difficult though it is, specialists in child abuse, who could be called into court if necessary, would be able to distinguish this from a situation where one parent is clearly using their child as a weapon. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has said, if the judges are given adequate training, they too would be able, in their wisdom and experience, clearly to distinguish the one from the other.
We need a clear marker in law that some ways of alienating children from the other parent are totally unacceptable and need to be shown to be clearly illegal. I believe this is best seen not as a form of child abuse but as an aspect of domestic abuse. There may be child abuse in some cases, but this does not take away from the fact that some parents, while not guilty of abuse, alienate their children from the other parent.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB) [V]
My Lords, I warmly congratulate the Government on this Bill, particularly the recognition that children are also victims of domestic abuse when witnessing abuse, often between parents. I support Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, and her supporters, and Amendment 4, to which I have added my name.
In briefings from some quarters, there is disagreement on the inclusion of parental alienation in this Bill. It is argued that this is because there is as yet no clear definition of the term. The issues have been very ably outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. However, I believe that a lack of definition merely means we are in the process of making much greater—[Inaudible.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
Lady Watkins, we have lost you—we can see you, but we cannot hear you. I think we will carry on and hopefully come back to the noble Baroness later, if she will forgive us. I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Helic.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
I thank my noble friend Lady Meyer for her moving and courageous contribution based on her personal experience. However, I am unable to support Amendments 2 and 4.
I wish to focus my remarks on the deliberate misuse of allegations of parental alienation as a tactic to minimise or cover up serious allegations of domestic violence and abuse; in other words, allegations which direct attention away from an abusive parent onto a protective parent. We must guard against them becoming a loophole, or a get-out-of-jail card, in our law, in a way which makes it even harder for victims of domestic abuse—whether male or female, young or old—to receive protection, medical and emotional care, and justice.
The concept at the heart of the amendments put forward by my noble friend emerged in the United States during the 1970s. The core idea was that, if a child appeared afraid of one of their parents, or did not want to spend time with them, this was the result of pathology, rather than a possible reaction to that parent’s behaviour. This theory was developed in the 1980s by psychiatrist Richard Gardner, who came up with the term “parental alienation syndrome”. Gardner believed that almost all children in custody litigation suffered from this supposed syndrome. To treat it, he recommended de-programming therapy, which denied maternal contact in order to change a child’s belief that they had been abused. To be clear, he thought that children should be forced to live with a parent whom they said abused them.
While the term “parental alienation syndrome” has fallen from fashion, theories of parental alienation, alienation, and children who resist or refuse contact are all grounded in the same ideas. And just like parental alienation syndrome, these new terms are based on weak evidence, founded mainly on clinical observation rather than empirical academic studies. The World Health Organization has also dropped the concept from its index and classification altogether.
While there is very little evidence for parental alienation, there are clear studies which demonstrate the gendered assumptions and myths underlying it. A recent American study published a few months ago found not only that 82% of the alienation claims analysed were brought by fathers but that fathers were more than twice as likely than mothers to win their cases when claiming alienation, and that fathers’ claims of alienation were far more likely to result in a change of residency than mothers’ claims. Parental alienation is not just bad science; it is bad science biased against women.
Despite this, the idea of parental alienation persists in public discussion and has gained traction in some parts of the family justice system, particularly regarding parental alienation experts being instructed in cases. But these so-called experts, who often have very limited credentials, are still referring to Gardner’s discredited theories and recommending transfers of residence from mothers to fathers. This has the potential to cause real harm. The Cafcass Cymru review noted that
“the label parental alienation syndrome (PAS) has been likened to a ‘nuclear weapon’ that can be exploited within the adversarial legal system in the battle for child residence”.
Yet these damaging ideas are now being proposed for inclusion within the statutory definition in the Bill.
The Bill is meant to tackle domestic violence, but as that quote warned, perpetrators of domestic abuse use this discredited theory to undermine non-abusive parents. This tactic has been highlighted by specialist domestic abuse organisations for more than a decade. There is clear research highlighting the links between domestic abuse and parental alienation allegations. A Canadian study looking at cases involving parental alienation accusations found that 42% also featured allegations of domestic or child abuse. In almost four-fifths of these cases, the parental alienation allegation was made by the alleged perpetrator of domestic or child abuse against the non-abusive parent.
Domestic abuse experts are clear about what is happening. Parental alienation is being used as a stock response to any allegation of domestic abuse. In contrast to the weak evidence base for parental alienation, the pattern of it being used like this by perpetrators is found in research from across the world, including the United States, Spain, Italy, Australia and New Zealand. It is also seen here in the United Kingdom. Survivors who directly contacted me have described this happening, and their experiences are echoed in the reports of organisations such as Women’s Aid, front-line services, and survivor campaigners. Dr Adrienne Barnett, a leading expert from Brunel University, has studied child contact cases in England and Wales, and found that 50% of the cases she looked at which involved allegations of parental alienation also involved domestic abuse allegations. Yet researchers and survivors tell us that if children are alienated, this is almost always interpreted by the courts as evidence of manipulation and parental alienation, and never as the alternative: that the parent has been abusive and alienated the child through their own actions.
These findings are confirmed by the Ministry of Justice’s expert panel review, which reported in June 2020. It warned that the pro-contact culture of the courts makes them receptive to accusations of parental alienation whenever concerns over child safety are raised. Alarmingly, parental alienation is then taken more seriously than allegations of domestic abuse. The expert panel made a number of recommendations which are in the process of being considered and implemented, but it is safe to say that this amendment would have a negative impact on this work.
Above all, we must not overlook the impact on children. On the basis of discredited science, children are being forced to live with abusers. Indeed, the theory and practice of parental alienation run counter to many of the advances that have been made in recent years, and in this Bill, when it comes to children and abuse. We increasingly recognise the importance of the voice of the child, and that children are victims of domestic abuse in their own right, and not just as bystanders. Yet the concept of parental alienation strips them of all agency and denies that they can really be suffering harm as a result of abuse—that suffering must be something dreamed up by their mother; an idea with which they have been brainwashed.
Nobody denies that there may be cases where abuse is falsely alleged, or where parents try to control their children’s affections. But it is already the job—the daily bread and butter—of the courts to determine whether allegations are true or not. In so far as there is genuinely abusive behaviour covered under the vague label of parental alienation, it would be covered by the much tighter and better evidenced concept of coercive control. Introducing parental alienation into the mix does not safeguard against abuse or protect against some heinous crime; it allows an allegation of a discredited concept to have equal or even greater weight than an allegation of domestic abuse, which we know is associated with significant harm to children.
The definition of domestic abuse in this Bill will be critical for improving responses for survivors and children experiencing domestic abuse. It is vital that it does not include concepts without a robust basis in evidence. There is no convincing evidence for theories of parental alienation. There is evidence, however, that they are used to counter domestic abuse allegations and that they risk causing great harm to survivors of domestic abuse, including children. I hope that my noble friend will consider withdrawing her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I think we may have the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, back again. Perhaps she would like to continue with what she was saying.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB) [V]
Taking this into consideration, it is clear that these amendments are designed to ensure that, if one parent alienates a child from the other, this may be treated as a form of domestic abuse based on a clear definition of parental alienation. The amendments have at their heart the prime consideration of the child’s welfare, consistent with the Cafcass definition. However, such an allegation must take into account the child’s perspective of the situation, not just that of both parents. Children’s voices of concern for, or fear about, a parent must be considered when making arrangements for access with either parent.
Sometimes it is appropriate to cease access between a child and parent for the child’s protection and well-being. However, should that parent receive help and become more stable—perhaps in their personal health and well-being—access to their children should be reconsidered and attempts made to establish some level of relationship, subject, of course, to the child’s welfare being paramount.
These amendments are designed to enable such an approach. The UK Parental Alienation Study of 2020, conducted by Good Egg Safety CIC, involved 1,500 parents, almost half of whom had not seen their children in the previous six months. It is quite a sobering thought for many of us who are parents that, in some instances, family separation can be deeply harmful and could cause significant long-term harm to children. For these reasons I support the amendments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I take a moment to praise the powerful speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, with which I entirely concur.
As a Green, being lobbied from a wide variety of perspectives on the linked Amendments 2 and 4 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, the obvious place to start was with the evidence, so I asked the House of Lords Library for a survey of the peer-reviewed research. The conclusions of that evidence—the concern that the concept of parental alienation had been dangerously overdeveloped and overused—were clear. An entire issue of the Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law is dedicated to this subject. The introduction states that,
“experts in the field of domestic and family violence have expressed serious concerns regarding the recourse to the concept of parental alienation by family court and child protection services. In the context of domestic and family violence, women may have well-grounded reasons to want to limit father-child contact … However, with a ‘parental alienation’ lens, women’s and children’s concerns are likely to be seen as invalid and as a manifestation of the mother’s hostility and alienating behaviours.”
That quote, and my views, reflect the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I also associate myself with her concerns about the current uses in the courts. I support her call for the removal of the reference to parental alienation in the draft statutory guidance for the Bill. That is not the conclusion of just one journal; it is reflected in other articles in a range of journals, including the Family Court Review, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, and the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse.
The introduction from the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, is an atypical account. The whole basis of claims of parental alienation is, in general, highly gendered. It claims that what women are saying cannot be trusted and relied upon. The pervasiveness of this was also evident in the conclusions of the brilliant Cumberlege report into medical devices and practices causing harm mostly to female patients and their concerns not being listened to.
That is the evidence, but I also want to go to fundamental principles. I believe in trusting individuals, in believing their capacity to make choices and decisions for themselves. That is a foundation of Green political thought. Inherent in the claims of parental alienation is the assumption that children can be turned against one parent by another, an assumption reflecting the hypodermic syringe theory of communication: that a message delivered will be 100% absorbed, believed and acted upon. This is a false consciousness argument, a claim that people do not understand their own circumstances and situations. Trusting individuals includes trusting, and listening to, children. Failure to do that has been a huge issue in many recent, tragic child sexual abuse scandals.
Votes at 16 is a long-term Green Party policy, but I regularly speak to school and community groups much younger than that who have very clear views and understandings that they have developed by themselves, through thought, research and consideration. The exam-factory model of schooling, to which successive Governments have been so attached, has not succeeded in destroying this. I believe very strongly that children need to be consulted and listened to by the courts and professionals when decisions are being made about their lives.
This brings me finally to acknowledge that we are all shaped by our own lives and experiences and should be open about and declare them. There is no such thing as an unbiased observer—in science, social science or politics. I know about this from personal experience. As a child, I was subjected to an attempt by a grandparent to alienate me from other members of my family. I rejected that, turned against it, understood what was being done to me and resisted from a very young age. In today’s debate, I will be listening to and relying on the peer-reviewed evidence, but also reflecting my own life understanding, in speaking against the inclusion of parental alienation in the Bill, because the whole approach fails to listen to women and children particularly and is not based on evidence.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, I begin with an apology: I was unable to take part at Second Reading of this important Bill, a Bill on which I, like others, congratulate the Government. Unlike much of our discussion and debate in this House, this is a real debate, with passionate views, strongly and sincerely held, being expressed on both sides of the argument.
I come to this from a background of 40 years as a constituency MP. Throughout that time, I held frequent and regular advice surgeries—at least a couple a month. I was always most distressed and least able to help when people brought their parental and marital difficulties to me. Whenever I saw people to discuss these things, I became convinced that, in almost every case, the victims were the children. When there is a separation or break-up of a marriage, long-term relationship or anything else, it is the children who always suffer, regardless of the “blame” attached to either side. Other noble Lords will have shared these experiences, which were the most difficult—indeed impossible—to resolve adequately, properly and fairly.
Some years ago, when I was in the United States with the Foreign Affairs Committee of another place, I met someone who felt passionately about this issue. In the margins of our meetings, she explained to me the cause that she was championing and gave me some of the details of why she was doing so. That person was the wife of our then American ambassador, Sir Christopher Meyer, and is now our much-admired colleague in your Lordships’ House. She spoke today with passionate intensity; it was a very moving speech.
I was minded to say that I would of course support these amendments. I support so much of what is behind them, but I cannot ignore the powerful speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Helic, or from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, a few moments ago. I am very persuaded by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who knows perhaps more than any of us about marital problems and difficulties from her work in the family court. Although she spoke so briefly but movingly, this is something we must not dismiss.
I wonder whether the Bill is the right vehicle at the moment. I am not saying that I am persuaded that it is not; I shall talk and read more after today’s debate, but one body is frequently derided in the modern age: the royal commission. I wonder whether a royal commission to look into these things, to weigh the conflicting academic and other evidence, might not offer a positive and helpful way forward. There is no doubt that both my noble friends Lady Meyer and Lady Helic would be more than well equipped to give powerful evidence to such a body—as would others; we have all had representations on both sides of the argument.
There is nothing worse than polluting the mind of a child and weaponising and indoctrinating a child, particularly doing it with the intention of discrediting the other parent. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to enjoy very long marriages and see our children likewise enjoy long marriages have no real idea of just how devastating the sort of situation that my noble friend Lady Meyer described can be. We can only listen with sympathy and regard. We can empathise to the best of our ability, but we have not been there and we do not know that. However, I think that it would be very sensible for a royal commission to look into this. Royal commissions do not always have to, in the words of the late Lord Wilson, take minutes and sit for years. A small group of very experienced lawyers and others could pronounce on this in a fairly short timescale.
For the moment, I reserve my position on this amendment. I want to listen to what others say in this debate and when we come to Report, but I ask my noble friend who will reply from the Front Bench at least to reflect on the suggestion I have put forward and see whether it offers us a way to achieve what my noble friend Lady Meyer would have us achieve without some of the dangers talked about so powerfully by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lady Helic.
Lord Polak (Con)
I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Cormack, and I agree with him, but my overriding concerns are for children. As I stated at Second Reading, I warmly welcome the step that the Government made to ensure that the children of victims of domestic abuse are duly recognised in the definition. The moving and in many ways deeply tragic stories so compassionately told by my noble friend Lady Meyer are an important lesson for all of us as we embark on five days of debate on this vital legislation. Sadly, we will all have stories. We all know of situations and we all know people affected, but overridingly we need to find ways to put a stop to the cycle of abuse. That is why I have so much sympathy for the aims of my noble friend’s amendments. It seems pretty clear to me that a child who has experienced parental alienation should be included as a victim of domestic abuse.
Like many noble Lords, I have received many briefings and personal testimonies. One in particular that arrived in my in-box saddened me on this important issue of parental alienation. It is not good enough for opponents somehow to pretend that either it does not happen or, as my noble friend Lady Helic asserted at Second Reading, to refer to the concept of “so-called” parental alienation. As my noble friend Lady Meyer clearly outlined, it can and does happen, and it is sadly so much more than a concept.
I was contacted and told the following story: “I was the victim of domestic abuse in 2006. I and my two children, aged three and five months, left the family home with the help of Women’s Aid. The father has used coercive control consistently since then, calling the police and the social services to say that I am abusing the children. It is always completely unfounded. In 2013, he decided to terminate all contact. He reappeared last year, and has now completely alienated my precious, loving 15 year-old son.” The story continued.
We must not neglect children who are suffering from the absence of a beloved parent due to manipulation by another parent. My noble friend Lady Meyer is quite right to say that parental alienation is not an ideology or a concept. It is real. I will be interested if the Minister can explain why alienation does not fit into Clause 1(3), which refers to,
“physical or sexual abuse … violent or threatening behaviour … controlling or coercive behaviour … economic abuse … psychological, emotional or other abuse.”
Could paragraph (c) not read “controlling, alienating or coercive behaviour”?
Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I, too, wish to commend the Minister on bringing this solid piece of legislation before the House and getting it to this stage. However, I rise to speak in support of these two amendments and commend those who tabled them and brought them before the House. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, speaks with personal knowledge on this issue, having listened to her on another occasion and to what she has said today. When someone refers to their personal experience, I think it is always prudent, has a lot of merit and deserves a lot of close attention.
I want to address my comments today to the narrow issue of parental alienation. I am aware that this legislation applies primarily to England and Wales, not Northern Ireland. However, it is important that all parts of the UK are able to move forward with these protections as soon as possible. A gap in legislation was created when the Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended. My DUP colleagues and I will support the amendment in the event of the Committee dividing. It would insert parental alienation into the definition of domestic abuse in Clause 1.
Sadly, we live in a society today where there are thousands of parents who do not have any relationship with their children, and in some of these cases simply because one parent, for no good reason, turned their child against them. This amounts to abuse and is debilitating. Parental alienation is a serious, deliberate manipulation of a child by one parent against the other parent. Of course, it can take many forms, including speaking negatively to the child about the other parent, reducing and controlling the child’s contact with the other parent, cancelling contact at the last minute and forbidding the child to talk about the other parent.
The effects can be life-changing. A child may believe that their parent is bad and dangerous. This can adversely affect a child’s mental health in later years. The child can be left bereft of the love, compassion and guidance of a parent. The alienated parent cannot share key milestones in their child’s life. I do not think it is possible to overstress the importance and influence of parents in their children’s life. Often by the time alienation has been proven through the courts it is much too late to encourage a child to see his or her other parent. Clinical depression, anxiety, fractured attachments, suicide ideation, deliberate self-harm, alcohol abuse, premature sexual activity and academic underachievement may have already occurred.
The sweeping generalisation that parental alienation is a concept being used by fathers as a tool to silence female victims of domestic violence is not accurate. There is a real risk that those advocating that position will neglect the needs of those men and women who do not have convictions for domestic violence or other offences but have been cut off from contact with their children and grievously miss them.
However, I want to make it abundantly clear that I am not in any way seeking to challenge cases where a child has valid reasons for rejecting a parent, such as abuse or neglect, or where they have been unavailable to a child due to a prolonged period of addiction or of working overseas. My understanding of these amendments is that they are focused on situations where children become alienated through no fault of the affected parent, so it is critical that the Committee recognises that the harm caused in these cases is not restricted to abuse of a child. We should not ignore the fact that there is a range of motivating factors and circumstances involved in parental alienation, but I consider it appropriate to place it within the domestic abuse legislation as it victimises both parent and child.
I recognise and welcome that the Minister has already taken steps to classify parental alienation as an example of the psychological abuse in draft statutory guidance accompanying the Bill. On balance, however, I do not believe that this represents a level of protection or impetus that full legislative protection would provide.
My party, the DUP, has some concern around whether parental alienation will receive the attention it deserves in training and guidance on criminal behaviours without it being specifically stipulated as an offence in the Bill. Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly raised similar points during the development of the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill. We must ensure that there is knowledge, understanding and application of domestic abuse law as it relates to parental alienation.
We are mindful that these amendments and the Bill in general would address only issues relating to parental alienation at the point at which harm has been caused. While it may dissuade such behaviour in the future, we also recognise that prevention and earlier and better support for parents—and between parents and children—are key to improving long-term outcomes for children and families. There is a need for better collaboration between health and justice departments right across the UK in respect of this and specific policies on alienation.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support the Bill. The mental and physical damage of domestic abuse goes far beyond the pain and anguish caused at the time it occurs and stays with the victims and their families for many years, if not for the rest of their lives. It is important that we do all we can in this legislation to help victims to get out of abusive relationships and rebuild their lives.
I speak to Amendments 2 and 4, which propose to add parental alienation to the definition of abusive behaviour and therefore to every provision of the Bill. I fear that the proposed amendments may undo much of the work that the Bill seeks to do to protect victims of domestic abuse by swinging the pendulum of control back to the perpetrator of domestic abuse, rather than the victim, in making counterallegations.
Without meaning to sound flippant, at its extreme, any parent going through a break-up or divorce could find themselves of accused of domestic abuse under the Bill, and that is not what the Bill is intended for. I wonder whether the concern of the noble Lords who tabled these amendments is already covered by the combination of Clause 1(3)(e) and Clause 1(5). Alternatively, if the noble Lords behind the amendments have a specific instance in mind, they should look at where that could be catered for in specific clauses, but not as a wholesale change to the entire Bill in this way.
I can see these amendments having massive unintended consequences if they are included. I urge the Committee to accept neither change, to maintain the integrity of the Bill.
Baroness Newlove (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 2 and 4 on parental alienation. As the former Victims’ Commissioner, over the years, I have spoken to many domestic abuse victim survivors, and I have spoken about parental alienation. I know that this issue has been raised several times over many years from several parts of the country. No doubt like others in this House, I have been inundated with briefings and emails from domestic abuse organisations and victim survivors.
Most recently, we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friends, the domestic abuse commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird, and the London victims’ commissioner, Claire Waxman, who all say that they are very concerned about parental alienation. As we have heard, the domestic abuse commissioner is very concerned about giving perpetrators of domestic abuse a weapon to silence their victims in the family courts.
Submissions to a Ministry of Justice report last year made it plain that parental alienation is a barrier to victims of abuse. Current practices around parental alienation expose domestic abuse survivors and their children to further harm. Once again, silencing the victims of abuse and erasing the voice of children in the courts leads to their being regularly misunderstood or overlooked.
The criminal justice system and the justice system have been part of my DNA since 2007, so it does not sit comfortably with me to say that I also disagree with the amendments. However, hand on heart, I say to my noble friend Lady Meyer that her speech was very emotional, heartfelt and powerful. The justice system is a very lonely place to be. It still feels very lonely, clinical and unemotional and my voice is unheard as I go through it every day. I agree with my noble friend Lady Helic and the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Parental alienation creates a loophole. It poses a huge threat to the validity of the Bill and will ultimately expose the survivors to the very harm that the Bill is designed to prevent. That is why I cannot support the amendments and ask my noble friends to withdraw or not to move them.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am sympathetic to the amendments, with some caveats. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, for her amendments, which are important for us to address. They may give us an insight into some of the broader issues of the Bill.
One point of emphasis in the legislation is the victim. Contemporary culture tells us that we should believe the victim. I understand that for those of us frustrated over the years that domestic abuse was not taken seriously as a heinous crime, and sometimes dismissed when reported, leading to tragic consequences, it seems reasonable to be victim-centred—to put the victim centre-stage. However, my concern is to ensure that due process is not neglected in this endeavour and that we have nuance when we discuss who is the victim.
We know from recent events, such as the egregious case of Carl Beech, that believing the victim per se can lead to false allegations with terrible consequences. In the context of domestic break-ups and family issues, sometimes when the bitterness of broken relationships centres, for example, on the custody of children—we have heard many examples here today—ironically, or sadly, accusations of domestic abuse itself can be deployed and weaponised to paint one party as a perpetrator and another as a victim, alienating the accused parent from their children, but without any proof of guilt; it is just an allegation.
However, that allegation or accusation of domestic abuse in that instance is a terrible stigma. Imagine that your mum or dad is labelled an abuser by the other parent. That can obviously lead to great pain and parental alienation, all without anyone’s guilt being proven. I just want to remind the Committee of the important principle of innocent until proven guilty and make sure that is not sidelined.
Ironically, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, claims that the very concept of parental alienation can be misused and lead to false allegations and, of course, she is right. But that is true of any piece of legislation, or any rule. Parental alienation can be falsely alleged but so can domestic abuse, but we do not suggest that we should not have legislation on that.
We might ask why in this debate we are so cynical and disbelieving of those who claim that they are victims of parental alienation. That seems very one-sided in a culture where we are told that we should believe the victims all the time. It is a reminder that claiming to be a victim is not proof and needs to be evidenced; that is not just in relation to the one issue of parental alienation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, tells us that fathers are the majority who claim parental alienation, and then seemed to imply that this was proof of the misuse of the concept by perpetrators. To be fair, that seemed to suggest that fathers were perpetrators of domestic abuse, which, as I say, is an accusation that goes too far for me. It reinforces my worry that there is a bias against one parent—often gendered—based less on evidence than on prejudice. I say that not as a men’s rights activist, as somebody accused me of being the other day when I made this point, but as a women’s rights activist who thinks that we should be fair in this discussion.
Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]
My Lords, I want to speak in support of Amendments 2 and 4 tabled by my noble friend Lady Meyer. I remember being horrified when I first heard her personal story, many years ago. But since then, I have learned and seen that this is not an isolated incident, unfortunately.
As we have heard, while there is no single definition of parental alienation, it is recognised by Cafcass as when
“a child’s resistance or hostility towards one parent is not justified and is”,
tragically,
“the result of psychological manipulation by the other parent.”
It has devastating impacts on the child, but is a form of abuse and control of the other parent and in line with emotional abuse of a controlling and coercive nature.
As I have listened to this debate unfold, I have thought back to the battle that has taken place over a long time to include coercion in our definition of domestic abuse, and to recognise children as victims. I hope that it does not take as long for us to wake up to include parental alienation.
No one wants their relationship to break down but, when it does, both parents are responsible for the healthy development of their child. This includes promoting a proper, loving relationship, which includes frequent, regular contact between the child, both parents and their extended families.
Alienation adversely affects the psychological development of a child, as it prevents a natural, healthy bond and relationship with a parent. A child needs to be nurtured and protected; that is especially true of a baby. At a time of total dependence, a mother’s physical and emotional presence regulates the baby’s fear response and overproduction of adrenaline and cortisol. Brain scans of toddlers who have experienced abuse and been deprived of emotional nurturing were shown to have disproportionately large and active limbic systems. As a result, these “fight or flight” hormones remain in the body and the child is in a constant state of anxiety and distress, not dissimilar to a soldier suffering from PTSD.
But it is equally important that the child has a relationship with their father. This is not a gendered issue. A major study in the Journal of Applied Economics, “The Impact of Income and Family Structure on Delinquency”, found that when interactions between a child and their parent broke down, and the perception and view of the other parent deteriorated, it was the child who suffered and transitioned to emotions of abandonment, alienation and a lack of trust, with both parent and child worse off.
There is no statistically significant difference between men and women as perpetrators and victims of parental alienation. Raising issues of gender discrimination to discredit the experience of many is not the way forward. But the effects on alienated parents, who lose the trust of their children and therefore their willingness to see them due to the actions of the other parent, are devastating.
There can be no doubt that judicial decisions in cases involving children must take account of all aspects of the family dynamic, including all types of abuse. This is crucial, as we have heard this afternoon. There is a need for qualified professionals to assist in court in assessing whether there is abuse, and if so its severity, and how it should affect child-parent residence and contact arrangements. But we also need to be mindful that children’s expressed wishes in court are not always their own. They do not always feel free to express their actual wishes, particularly when young, and they can be used as a weapon by an abusive parent.
Therefore, it is important that parental alienation is recognised in the Bill as a form of abuse, so that it can be identified and addressed.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, before I had the pleasure of meeting my noble friend Lady Meyer, I had read about the unbelievably distressing time she went through following the alienation of her children by their father. Today she has told us that story in the most moving way. I apologise for the fact that, as she is sitting behind me, she is seeing only my back rather than my front as I make this speech.
I admire my noble friend for all she has done to raise awareness of parental alienation through the setting up of her charity and getting the academic and judicial profession to realise that parental alienation needs to be recognised. Along with her, I want parental alienation recognised, but it must be tackled in law in the right way. Hasty law makes for bad law and will not elevate parental alienation to where we all want it. This important Bill must not become a Christmas tree on which we hang too much, which leads to minimising what it wants to achieve.
I cannot agree with the amendment to this Bill. Clause 1 sets out to define domestic abuse by listing different types of abusive behaviours, and not how they may be manifested. This is important, because to do this could be risky and give more weight to how a particular type of behaviour is displayed, and potentially ignore others. As many noble Lords have mentioned, the introduction of parental alienation into the Bill could have unintended consequences due to the absence of a common definition. Consequently, in a family court, cases of parental alienation could mean whatever the judge wants it to mean.
A child may form their own reasons for resisting contact, and there are cases where a parent, for no justified reason, restricts the other parent’s relationship with the child. These are two very different situations under the parental alienation label, which serves to validate the misuse of parental alienation and to obscure the tactics of perpetrators of domestic abuse.
Parental alienation needs to be looked into in its own right. This is now being done after too many years of misunderstanding, lack of clarity and muddle among the experts. My noble friend Lady Helic mentioned how the Ministry of Justice set up an expert panel and reported in June 2020. The panel made a series of recommendations, which I do not have time to go into here, to reform the child arrangement programme in family law. Leading on from this, the Government published an implementation plan for some of the recommendations. One recommendation said:
“A review of the presumption of parental involvement … is needed urgently in order to address its detrimental effects.”
In November, the Government announced an advisory group to begin this work. I welcome these initiatives and feel strongly that this is the way forward, to make sure that parental alienation gets the recognition it deserves.
I want my noble friend to get all she feels is necessary to have parental alienation recognised in law, but my fear is that adding her amendment to this Bill will have a detrimental effect on the work that is going on, and will minimise the importance of this appalling problem. We must make sure that parental alienation is put into legislation where it can be properly dealt with, and this Bill is not that legislation.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, this is such a difficult issue. This afternoon we have heard strong and cogent arguments on both sides. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, for telling her heartrending story.
Parental alienation exists, if by that we mean that the parent with care seeks to alienate the child from the parent without care. One issue is that there is such a wide range of definitions, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Brinton. I saw it first-hand as an MP when I was involved with an organisation called the Association of Shared Parenting, formed by parents who were struggling to see their children after separation or divorce. It was based on the premise that most children benefit from contact with both parents, surely something with which no noble Lord in this House would disagree. The Association of Shared Parenting still exists, despite changes in family law, which I would have hoped would save it from needing to exist. Clearly, we need qualified professionals to assess what is going on. The bitterness of a break-up and the reluctance of the parent with care to continue the relationship through the child causes some parents to resist allowing contact by weaponising the child or poisoning their mind.
That is why I initially added my name to these amendments, but I have since removed it, because I do not believe that this is what we are talking about today. We are talking about cases in the criminal courts, not of divorce settlements necessarily but of domestic abuse. The problem with this amendment, which it took me some time to get my head around, is that the abused parent could actually be painted as the abuser. As Vera Baird, the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, who has been quoted more than once already today, says:
“It puts victims of domestic abuse into the ridiculous position where, if they raise their abuse in the family courts, however well they have actually behaved, that can trigger unfounded allegations of parental alienation that could result in their children being placed with the abuser.”
She continues:
“This attempt to turn the fact that the perpetrator has terrified their partner into a destructive criticism of that partner is typical coercive controlling behaviour.”
My noble friend Lady Brinton and the noble Baronesses, Lady Helic and Lady Newlove, the former Victims’ Commissioner, are absolutely right. With sympathy to all parents suffering the anguish of break-up, the interests of the child must be paramount. I do not envy the task of the family courts in resolving these cases. We must rely on properly trained experts to decide. On balance, I believe that allowing Amendments 2 and 4 would do more harm than good to victims and dilute the definition of domestic abuse in this Bill.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is a solid piece of legislation and I hope that the process on which we are embarking will make it better. I remind the Committee that I sit as a family magistrate in London, so I regularly deal with all types of family-related cases, including parental alienation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, gave a heartfelt speech; I found it very moving. She has clearly endured the most difficult of circumstances. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, gave closely, carefully and well-argued support of the amendments to which she put her name.
In family courts, as everyone has acknowledged, you quite often hear allegations of parental alienation, and a normal scenario is different from what we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer. A more normal scenario is that the parents are separated, the father has not seen the children for a while—too long—and he makes a private law application to see his children. The mother says there has been domestic abuse—or there have been allegations of domestic abuse—and the father makes a counter allegation, almost as a defence, saying that the mother is alienating the children against the father. That scenario is quite common. It is for the courts to try and sort it out, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, got it right when she said that both domestic abuse and parental alienation allegations can be either true or false. It is the job of the court process to sort that out.
I want to add two other observations. First, it is the duty of the court to get the best result for the child; we are not there to get a fair result for the parents. The question that we often ask ourselves is: “How do we get the voice of the child into the court?” One usual way of doing that is through Cafcass; there is an interview with a very experienced Cafcass officer who gives their view about what would be best for the child, and that view can be examined in the court. The way that Cafcass looks at these issues will be examined later in other amendments.
There is another way of doing it, which happens very rarely. I have not done it myself, but I have done it in public law cases, and that is where the child tells the court what they want. In the scenario where I was involved, a child was going to be taken into care by social services, and I have to say, it was extremely moving. The children whom I have done this for were well aware of the realities of the situation, and they were very aware that they were saying different things to the court—to me as the magistrate—than they had been saying to their parents. My experience is that children understand these situations; they can be toxic and extremely difficult, but nobody should underestimate children’s ability to understand the difficulty of their family situation.
I do not come down for or against these amendments, as such. It is a difficult situation. Other noble Lords made the point that there are many ways that parents can undermine and be unpleasant to each other that are not to the benefit of the children. One noble Baroness referred to the Bill as a potential Christmas tree of abusive relationships, and this does not help, because there are many varieties that one sees in court. Nevertheless, the central point I make to the Committee is that it is the court’s role to come up with the best solution for the child, not what is fair for the parents.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Meyer, who is right to highlight the protection of children. I acknowledge, empathise and sympathise with her terrible experience of parental abduction, which, as she said, led to her being alienated from her children for years. We know that domestic abuse has devastating consequences, not only for adult victims but for their children, which is why the Bill rightly recognises children as victims in their own right. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, pointed out, this is very much part of the court proceeding, as has also just been articulately outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. Some of the protections that have been outlined in the Bill, such as preventing cross-examination in courts, mitigate this in some ways.
I also agree with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in questioning the judicial training that must support the outcome of such proceedings, whatever it is. We know that child arrangement cases involving domestic abuse or allegations of abuse often include allegations of alienating behaviours, where one parent seeks to undermine or frustrate the other parent’s relationship with their children, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, also outlined. These actions, as my noble friend highlights in her amendment, are often referred to as “parental alienation”.
My noble friend Lady Helic, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, pointed out how the term has so often been used to sidetrack from the issue of domestic abuse. She pointed out that the pro-contact culture of the courts quite often leads to the wrong decisions being made.
To answer my noble friend Lord Polak, there is no widely accepted definition, nor a commonly held framework, for parental alienation. Instead, views are wide-ranging: some focus on the parent’s behaviour, some focus on the child’s behaviour and others focus on the impact or outcome of the behaviour. For these and other reasons, I refer instead to “alienating behaviours”. That phrase is used in the guidance, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Bennett, point out. The guidance will be subject to consultation after Royal Assent. The beauty of the House of Lords is of course its scrutiny of Bills. To that end, we very much welcome views on how to deal with this issue.
Alienating behaviours can include a range of attitudes and actions. Some are subtle, such as drip-feeding negative views, while others are more obvious, such as deliberately flouting child arrangement orders. I am clear that these behaviours are wrong and problematic, but they are not limited to cases involving domestic abuse. They occur in the context of acrimonious separation and other high-conflict cases, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I have sympathy with my noble friend’s wish to address these behaviours, but I submit that the definition in Clause 1 for the purposes of the Bill is not the right context in which to do so.
Alienating behaviours should be considered primarily in terms of the impact on the child. Most noble Lords referred to that and to the potential emotional and psychological harm to the child that can result, for example, from repeatedly hearing negative views about a parent or being prevented from spending time with a parent. From the perspective of risk of harm to the child, the relevant legal framework is provided for in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989, together with the Section 31(9) definition of harm in that Act.
I accept that alienating behaviours can, in some circumstances, be indicators or manifestations that point to a wider pattern of psychological or emotional abuse. To be absolutely clear, I do not accept that alienating behaviours should be defined as domestic abuse in their own right. However, in circumstances where such behaviours are indicative of a wider pattern of emotional or psychological abuse, we can be confident that the Clause 1 definition already applies and renders the proposed amendment unnecessary.
Our approach in Clause 1 is to define domestic abuse by reference to different types of abusive behaviours and not by reference to the form in which those behaviours may be expressed or manifested. If we were to include within the Clause 1 definition a list of possible indicators under each type of abuse, we would risk appearing to give more weight to one form of behaviour and therefore creating a hierarchy of behaviours. Should a particular indicator or manifestation of psychological or emotional abuse not be listed, it may be deemed to be less serious or, worse, not a form of abuse at all.
The arena in which we can most effectively address alienating behaviours as potential indicators of a recognised type of domestic abuse is the statutory guidance under Clause 73, which has been published in draft. I have gone through how that will be consulted on. It has been created and continues to be edited in consultation with the sector. As I said earlier, we welcome further suggestions on how the guidance can be further strengthened, including in the area of alienating behaviours. Once the Bill is enacted, the Home Secretary will formally consult the domestic abuse commissioner and other key stakeholders before the guidance is promulgated.
I note the points by my noble friends Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lady Chisholm that the unintended consequences might be to swing the pendulum of this good Bill the other way. My noble friend Lady Newlove warns of parental alienation creating a loophole in which to perpetrate abuse. I give the final word to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, who warns that, if these amendments are accepted, victims might be painted as abusers.
I hope that, in the light of this explanation and our commitment to address alienating behaviours in the statutory guidance, my noble friend Lady Meyer can withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful for this opportunity to speak after the Minister. I did not submit my name for the speakers’ list for this group because I could not rely on the train from Scotland getting me here on time, but I am delighted that I managed to make it in time to hear the powerful and important speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer.
When I first saw this amendment at the end of last week, unaware as I was then that it would become perhaps the most controversial and debated issue of our first day in Committee, I flinched. I understand the motivations behind it and there have been powerful speeches on both sides of the debate, but I fear that the Bill’s purpose, which we celebrated earlier this month at Second Reading—to empower victims of domestic abuse to be confident enough to deal with their circumstances, and to ensure that perpetrators are properly punished—would be undermined by the amendments. These amendments could disempower victims of domestic abuse and therefore run contrary to the rest of the Bill.
On reading the amendment on Friday morning, I immediately imagined a situation where a woman is about to flee the home, even temporarily, and the man says, “But under the Domestic Abuse Act I will pursue you for alienation.” A very high proportion of women facing that situation would stay where they were out of an additional fear, on top of all the fear they already experience. I will not tell my personal story here, but I can absolutely assure noble Lords that this happens and this would happen. We should hesitate and think very carefully about this issue in advance of accepting an amendment of this sort.
I was persuaded by the powerful cases made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Helic, but particularly by the wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, spelling out the need to take time over this issue, to consider it carefully, and to do the right thing for the victims of domestic abuse and the children who might be affected. For that reason I think the Government have the balance right by not including alienation in the Bill, but by referring to it in the draft statutory guidance. I therefore support the Minister’s submission.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord’s very balanced view. It is absolutely right that we do not undermine what is very good legislation by acting in haste and regretting at leisure. The case study the noble Lord outlined was in the back of my mind as well.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I have made so many notes that I do not know where to start. I thank all those who spoke very kindly, particularly those who support my amendments. Listening to the people who oppose them was really interesting. It made me realise how some people are quite misinterpreting their purpose. They are not about disarming women confronted by abusive men—quite the opposite; I am such a woman. False accusations are quite a different issue.
As I mentioned, it is for the courts to decide in their investigation or fact-finding hearings whether a situation is parental alienation, purposefully done by one parent using the child as a tool against the other. I do not know whether noble Lords can imagine how that feels. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said that she was in a situation like that, but it probably was not very much; it was probably a grandmother telling her that her mother was not very nice. However, many children are indoctrinated. Some people talk about children being in a cult, being constantly and continuously indoctrinated by being told that the other parent and the other family are bad. Those children live in fear of the disapproval of the parent who is alienating them.
The point I am trying to make is that parental alienation is about control; it is about one parent wanting to control the other. This is coercive behaviour. We might regret refusing to include parental alienation in the Bill because we would put children most at risk. My noble friend Lady Helic said that there is no data to prove parental alienation. I believe that there is, because many people are talking about it and are worried about it being used in some cases. Thousands of studies have been done, and I can gladly send them to the Minister. Noble Lords talked about Dr Gardner, who has been dead for 20 years. He was talking about parental alienation syndrome, but things have moved on since then. The fact that he came up with one idea that was then, properly, rejected does not mean that all the other research done afterwards is invalid.
I understand that some people feel very strongly that this is misused, but I go back to the point that it would be up to the courts. That is why we have courts and why, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, it is very important for more judges to understand what parental alienation is about. This is why we have Cafcass, and why this is recognised and in law in many countries. I do not know why we are having such a strong debate against it here. It fits in the Bill because it is used against one parent. Imagine being the parent against whom it is used: you are in a terrible position because your child dislikes you, he objects to seeing you and you cannot force the situation because you will upset him even more. It is a very efficient way to control one parent.
Lastly, the guidance will not help judges because it is not statutory. If parental alienation is just in the guidance it will not help to solve the issue earlier on.
I hope that the Minister and her department can talk with me about parental alienation to find another way to include it somewhere in the Bill—not in the guidance, but somewhere more prominent—and to make it clear that this is not anything to do with gender. I very much fear that this whole debate against parental alienation and a lot of stuff in the Bill are gender biased; there are male victims. I am talking here about children. I hope the Minister will accept discussing this further, so that we can find another way to include it in the Bill.
At this time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I look forward to coming back to it at the next stage.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 3. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 3
Baroness Altmann
“(f) unreasonable prevention or threat of prevention of dissolution of a religious Jewish marriage via a religious bill of divorce (a “get”);”Member’s explanatory statement
This specifically itemises one spouse unreasonably preventing the dissolution of a Jewish religious marriage with a ‘get’ as being within the scope of the Bill by bringing it under the definition of abusive behaviour.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak also to my other amendments in this group—Amendments 5, 168, 169 and 170, which all relate to the same issue.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Palmer, who have added their names to the amendments, providing cross-party support. I also thank my noble friends the Ministers, who have been so generous with their time in meeting Peers to discuss the amendments and other issues relating to the Bill, and indeed for their passion for, and dedication to, improving the support and recognition of victims of domestic abuse.
This set of amendments is designed to address a specific type of abuse that mostly affects religious Jewish women, and I declare an interest as one. This issue has long been of concern to me and to many other religious Jews in this country and worldwide. Our aim with the amendments is to help victims who are unable to leave a failed marriage because their spouse unreasonably decides to prevent them moving on with their life in accordance with Jewish religious law.
I stress at the outset that the amendments are specifically designed to refer only to Jewish religious divorce, with no intention of impacting on procedures relevant to any other religion. Jewish law, of course, governs Judaism, and there is no intention to undermine the role of the Jewish courts. The amendments are intended to offer a means of helping those impacted by a particular type of abuse that can arise in some cases in this country under Jewish laws of divorce.
I also stress that the majority of Jewish divorces proceed smoothly and British Jewish wives can move on with their lives once their civil divorce is finalised. However, sadly, there are some instances where a husband, sometimes demanding money to improve a divorce settlement agreed in the civil courts, sometimes driven by a desire to punish or control their ex-wife and sometimes to continue emotional abuse that existed in the marriage, unreasonably refuses to grant the get—the Jewish bill of divorce—leaving the wife married to him in the eyes of Jewish law, even if she wishes to be free.
The amendments seek to protect and support Jewish women—it is, I am afraid, usually women—whose husbands do not willingly sign the Jewish divorce document, the get. A get can be secured only if a man initiates it and the woman agrees—it cannot be initiated by the woman—so it is intrinsically biased in favour of the husband and is, sadly, open to abuse. This is a Jewish legal document that must be approved by the rabbinical court, known as the beth din, which literally means “House of Judgment”, and it allows a couple to divorce by mutual consent. However, a get is legally valid in Jewish religious law only if approved by the beth din, and this normally requires the rabbinical judges to be satisfied that it has been agreed voluntarily.
Those worst affected by an unreasonable refusal to grant a Jewish religious divorce can effectively be kept chained in the marriage for decades as their husbands prevent them being able to marry anyone else or have children accepted under Jewish religious law. As noble Lords can imagine, this situation causes immense distress to the women, who are known as agunot, which can be translated as “chained wives”.
Of course, ultimately, it is up to the religious authorities to make decisions about religious Jewish divorce, and there is an entire legal framework governing all aspects of Jewish life which dates back to biblical law. These amendments cannot interfere with the rulings of the religious courts. Nevertheless, with this Bill being such a huge advance for our country and offering our citizens better protection and support against abuse, I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will agree that these victims should also be entitled to the protection that will be available. The amendments specifically aim to address the plight of the abuse victims in such circumstances so that these citizens, who are subjected to such unreasonable, coercive and controlling behaviour, can access practical and emotional support, as provided under the Bill.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, like the other stories lying behind the need for this Bill, this set of amendments reveals a shameful story. I am pleased to support this group of amendments and to support the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. There could be as many as 100 women at a time caught in this situation who are known to the religious courts. It is not uncommon for women to secure their release by paying sums extorted from them by acts comparable to blackmail. The grant of the get can be used by the husband as leverage. A recent case involved a woman paying her ex-husband £50,000 for her freedom after 15 years of being chained; others have cost similar five-figure sums. It is reported that more abuse occurs nowadays than previously, perhaps connected to higher divorce rates and higher financial obligations imposed by secular courts. It is true that a religious divorce needs the woman’s agreement as well, but her refusal can be overridden by a religious court whereas a man’s cannot. Noble Lords can imagine what we women think of this and the lack of respect we have for the rabbinic authorities who manage to find all sorts of loopholes in religious law but not in this one.
It is embarrassing to have to turn to secular law for relief. The Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002 allows parties to ask a judge to delay a decree absolute until a religious divorce is finalised, but this law is ineffective if the husband does not care about getting a civil divorce. Then there is the Serious Crime Act 2015, Section 76, which is referred to in the amendment too. In the circumstances of a get refusal, there have been prosecutions launched against wholly unreasonable and controlling husbands under that section, which created the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship. Withholding the get fits well within that section. It is not, however, retrospective, and a person bringing a private prosecution has to be prepared to foot the bill for their legal costs. The section needs the proof of intent to cause fear of violence or serious distress. The cases about the get brought under this section never came to court because, once the husband had been served with the charge, he caved in. The result is that there is no precedent that this section can in fact be used where a get is withheld.
So why will the potential of Section 76 not suffice for the cruel treatment that has been described? The answer is that there would be advantages to dealing with unreasonable withholding of the get in the domestic abuse setting rather that of the Serious Crime Act. The use of a domestic abuse protection notice or order would open the door to a range of support for the victim. It also would mean that, rather than a criminal procedure, the perpetrator—usually, but not always, the husband—will be subject to a civil preventive measure, the notice, not a finding of guilt. A domestic abuse protection order can contain appropriate conditions, and must not conflict with the perpetrator’s religious beliefs. It is important that a domestic abuse order or notice be perceived as less coercive than a criminal conviction under the Serious Crime Act 2015. This is because a strict interpretation of the orthodox Jewish law requires that the husband be not directly coerced into giving the get; it has to be voluntary, as is widely understood. I am not defending this for a moment but, for those for whom the correct religious forms are important, and bearing in mind the impact on their present and future families, a domestic abuse protection notice or order would be a lifeline in secular and religious terms.
I support this set of amendments, which define the unreasonable withholding of a get as abusive behaviour; that is, when one spouse acts in a way which is controlling, coercing or threatening, or abusing the other spouse’s normal civil liberty of being able to remarry and have children in accordance with her beliefs. I hope that this House and the Government will extend a helping hand and free these unfortunate women.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 3, 5, 168, 169 and 170. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Altmann on her excellent introduction. I am delighted that my Government are putting forward this Bill and its attempt to provide as comprehensive as possible a set of arrangements relating to domestic abuse; it has my strong support. I am particularly grateful to the Ministers, my noble friends Lady Williams of Trafford and Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, for their willingness to engage.
To be clear, as my noble friend Lady Altmann said, the majority of cases of Jewish divorce are completed without too much difficulty; in the Orthodox community, they are handled by a beth din, and the judges—or dayanim—of the beth din ensure that all provisions of Jewish law are fully and appropriately adhered to. However, there are far too many cases where a man with ill intent can frustrate the process with potentially devastating ramifications for his spouse and, of course, his children. These amendments are clearly being proposed to ensure that victims of domestic abuse or coercive behaviour have full access to the provisions of the Bill. The amendments do not reduce the court’s existing ability to allow the religious courts to apply halacha—Jewish law—or, in particular, the provisions of the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002, which had the support of Lord Jakobovits, Lord Sacks and the London Beth Din.
As a practising member of the modern orthodox community, let me be absolutely clear: I am not remotely qualified to make statements on behalf of anyone, and certainly not on behalf of the beth din. However, I acknowledge that the beth din of the United Synagogue should be commended on the efforts it has made to limit the number of agunot—chained women. It has recently and rightly taken out adverts in the Jewish press that name and shame Jewish men who have refused to give a get, but sadly there is still so much more to do. However, these are overriding matters for the religious authorities and they should continue their own deliberations, although I believe that there may be scope for the Minister, my noble friend Lord Wolfson, to explore potential opportunities with the beth din going forward.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendments 3, 5, 168, 169 and 170. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for proposing these amendments and I applaud the compelling case that she made in her speech. I also thank all colleagues for their thoughtful comments and support for these measures which, as I say, I strongly support.
It is good to see the Minister in his place and ready to respond to the amendments. I am sure he is aware that it was his head of chambers, my noble friend Lord Grabiner, who introduced the Bill that became the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002 with the support of the then Government. These amendments come firmly from that tradition and the approach of successive Governments to these matters. The 2002 Act has been valuable, but, alas, the position of so many women who are caught in this situation continues to be a source of great anxiety. These measures would give real benefit and relief, not only to the women who are so chained but to the men who wish to marry them and, most importantly, to the health and well-being of any children caught up in this awful situation. I would like to pay tribute to Jewish Women’s Aid, GETTout and the many legal experts and professionals who have done so much for those too many who have been caught in this awful position.
These amendments do not seek to legislate on what I consider to be essentially matters of religious doctrine and custom. They do not seek to involve the civil courts in questions of Jewish religious law. In fact, these provisions would provide greater flexibility for the courts to apply matters so as to ensure a greater appreciation of religious law and those involved in it. Her Majesty’s judges have proved to be able to deal very effectively with these issues, and I am sure that the beth din of today will be able to do so too, as indeed it has since 1866 when the then Government told the Chief Rabbinate that it no longer had the sole or main right to determine marriage or divorce in the United Kingdom.
What these measures will do, most importantly, is support the person who in adverse circumstances is the most powerless, vulnerable and likely to be experiencing coercive or abusive behaviour. There has been a tendency in this debate to raise grounds for criticising rabbis for not getting a grip on the problem, but it is important to recognise that religious law is biblical in origin and therefore seen to be immutable. Changes in practice and interpretation are very hard to achieve, most notably in the orthodox and ultra-orthodox communities, especially in the absence of any central parliament and in the context of so many different traditions. In my opinion, their position must be understood.
Under our civil law, the process of divorce is straightforward and gender neutral. Neither party can control or manipulate the process, and once the conditions for divorce are satisfied, the divorce is granted. Jewish law is different, because it is gendered and allows the man to control the proceedings. There is a degree of mutuality, but, fundamentally, the process provides for the male to be able to make the final determination and empowers the religious courts with the ability to overrule women. Central to this is the place of the man to be judged as being able to make a decision under religiously defined obligations of “free will” or “free from coercion”. It is a definition absent of responsibilities, or even adherence to common accepted principles of right or wrong.
Unfortunately, these established rules of religious law sometimes bring out the worst in people. On these occasions, the giving of the get may be used as a tactical device or a weapon of blackmail in relation to the ancillary arrangements for the children of the marriage and the financial settlement made in connection with the civil divorce. Alternatively, a refusal to deliver a get may be motivated simply by malice or spite that is in turn driven by jealousy or some other, perhaps understandable but nevertheless objectively unreasonable, purpose. We have to place the needs of the victims at the centre and, as with this important Bill, rebalance our approach to deal with the needs of the victim.
Of course, the job of the beth din is not straightforward and should be recognised as being complex, and is, I am sure, as sensitive as it is agonising. We must avoid getting involved in its processes and matters that offend religious law and focus on helping the victims. In doing this—and this is why these amendments are so important—I will illustrate the predicament of victims through three real-life examples.
The first is of a woman who had been divorced in the civil court, but is still waiting for her get after five years. On finally securing an appointment with the religious court to receive her get, it was made conditional upon her signing to agree a financial settlement of £150,000 less than that awarded by the civil court, and being forced to sign a document relinquishing any ownership of the joint properties. She was encouraged by the beth din to accept the offer as a legitimate way to secure her get, but she did not choose to do so.
Another example is of a woman who has been waiting 20 years for her get, and whose estranged husband has left the religious community, so it has no hold over him. This, and the effect of years of emotional and violent abuse during the marriage, continues to blight her life.
A third woman’s husband was being prosecuted for the sexual abuse of children. In trying to secure her get, she was asked, including by presiding members of the religious court, to lie to the police and tell them that the accusations had been fabricated, so that she could be given her religious divorce. Additional financial sums were requested. The husband made further demands that were impossible for the wife to fulfil, such as clearing his name of all convictions and expunging references on the internet. The woman had non-molestation and restraining orders against her husband, but, nevertheless, she was subjected to a campaign of harassment at home, in the street and through the posting of offensive and abusive messages on social media. The perpetrators have not been easy to identify, nor has there been any co-operation in the investigations. While the beth din expressed sympathy with her plight, there was no movement on the securing of the get.
Not every matter can be resolved easily and not every situation will fall into neat boxes with regard to the roles that either the religious or civil courts can play. It is therefore essential that we take this opportunity to level the playing field and make sure that we give the support to victims that these amendments would provide. Their objective is to enshrine the right of Jewish women to secure their get where it is being withheld by a recalcitrant ex-husband in order to exert control over the woman. Having a specific inclusion for victims of this kind of coercive behaviour, psychological abuse and often economic extortion would be valuable to those women who may have secured a civil divorce but are not considered to be divorced within the Jewish religion. It is in line with the key objective of the Bill, which is to raise awareness and understanding of domestic abuse and its impact on victims. The provisions categorise domestic abuse as conduct whereby one party seeks to compel the other to remain in a marriage against their will and uses an existing religious structure to perpetuate abuse and exert control.
There is a provision in law for the withholding of a civil divorce if a husband does not give a get, but in abusive cases, husbands are often in no rush to obtain a civil divorce, and with the bulk of the matrimonial assets and resources often being in their sole name, they are content to remain married without the final separation under way in the civil court.
While the Jewish religious courts have introduced communal and social sanctions with some degree of effectiveness, they are severely limited by having weak enforcement capabilities. This is why the law needs to go further to protect victims of this kind of coercive control and mental cruelty.
Women in this position must be entitled to the support afforded to other victims of domestic abuse under the Bill, whereby unreasonably refusing to grant a religious divorce means an act or pattern of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape, and regulating their everyday behaviour. That is the absolute definition of coercive control.
It is important to bear in mind that for women who experience get refusal, it is highly likely that that is just one of many abusive behaviours perpetrated against them, often escalating over the course of several years. Sustained domestic abuse serves to humiliate, degrade and slowly remove a woman’s sense of self, severely limiting her wherewithal to advocate for herself. Many women in this position have explained the trauma and absolute desperation it creates, and the fact that they have no way of legitimising their concerns. In some cases a man uses the imbalance of power in his favour simply out of spite—perhaps out of dissatisfaction with the way the civil marriage ended, or with the financial settlement afforded him by the courts.
In other cases, a man may have mental health issues—commonly a personality disorder. In one example, a young woman, A, converted to Judaism and at 19 married a man, B, who quickly became physically and sexually abusive, as he suffered from bipolar disorder, of which she had been unaware during their short courtship. She left him after less than a year, but six years later remained in limbo, unable to marry within the religion she had chosen.
These amendments would provide the opportunity to ensure that the provisions and protections were available to all, and specifically to recognise the plight of these women, removing the shadow of abuse and control. The law cannot restore their right to exercise their faith through their ability to remarry and have children within their faith, but these measures, in this Bill, can provide women with protection through the courts, and give them access to a domestic abuse protection order on the grounds of get prevention.
As noble friends have said, beth din-approved gets have been achieved by using the law, and these particular measures, more creatively and assertively, and in tandem with other steps. Nothing in the amendments makes a case for using them in the first instance, or even making them a normal feature of proceedings in Jewish law governing divorces, the overwhelming majority of which, as colleagues have said, pass easily. I am sure that such a prospect, of being urged to be in compliance, would be unnecessary and would raise deep concerns. But these measures need to be more readily available to support victims, so I hope that the Government are willing to support the amendments, as they are in the tradition of their own approach and of the important progress that the Bill offers.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD) [V]
My Lords, I first declare my interests as noted on the register; I think the relevant ones would be as a vice-president of the Jewish Leadership Council and as a long-standing member of the United Synagogue. I have signed all the amendments in this group, and I shall not refer to them individually. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for leading on them. She said that she was speaking as a religious Jewish woman, so I thought it might be appropriate for me to speak as a religious Jewish man. These problems, which mainly affect women, are well known in the Jewish community.
Noble Lords will notice that the amendments in this group have been signed by Peers from the Cross Benches, the Conservative and Labour Benches, and by myself on the Liberal Democrat Benches. When I speak in debates, it is not often that I agree with all four of the speakers immediately before me—maybe this is due to my bad nature—but tonight I do, and I pay tribute to the details that they have added to the debate.
The questions we are asking are: what is abusive behaviour, and what is coercive behaviour? We are saying that spouses should not unreasonably prevent the dissolution of a Jewish religious marriage. Other noble Lords have mentioned the effects on the children of such marriages, and I shall expand a little on that. Previous amendments have said a lot about parental problems and responsibilities, but if no religious divorce—no get—is given, the children of that marriage cannot live separately with the divorced parent. Worse than that, the children of a marriage that is recognised in the civil courts but not in the Jewish religious courts are treated as illegitimate in the Jewish religion. What we need to do, if we can, is to use UK legislation to help those chained women.
Previous speakers have commented on recalcitrant husbands who demand to be paid off in order to give a get. We should do everything we can in UK legislation to give power to the women who have such problems. I would have given some examples, but the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, has already given some graphic ones, which I am sure will be well known to the Minister.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I rise with some trepidation—and, I hope, an appropriate degree of sensitivity—to make some brief comments on a subject on which I have no great expertise. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, the Minister, for the time he gave me to discuss this topic last week.
The stories recounted by noble Lords can inspire only sympathy for the women caught in this terrible trap; that is completely understandable. However, I have a concern and a question. Although it has been stated several times that the amendments relate only to Jewish marriage and can have no consequences for other belief systems I am concerned that, without some additional wording, the general principle underlying them—that one has an obligation to collaborate in a divorce—might leak out into other systems. such as those in which one spouse may have a conscientious objection to the principle of divorce. I am thinking principally of Roman Catholics, but also of other denominations. If it were to be taken, either by analogy or by legal persuasion, that that principle made it a criminal offence not to collaborate in or expedite a divorce to which one party had a conscientious objection, that would be a matter that needed careful consideration.
Although I have every sympathy with the amendments, I believe that they need additional wording and protection, at the very minimum, to ensure that the consequences I have hinted at are not brought about in legal reality. I very much wish to hear what my noble friend the Minister and my noble friend Lady Altmann, who moved the amendment, have to say about that, so that we can be confident that the measures are as precisely focused as she intends.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as noted in the register. We very much want the Bill to recognise the realities of abuse that different communities face, and to make sure that it will work in practice for victims of all backgrounds, religions, disabilities and so forth. We hope that the Minister will work with the Peers raising issues and look into their concerns.
I pay tribute to the noble Lords who tabled the amendments for the very experienced and knowledgeable way in which they have highlighted this matter, to ensure that the rights of Jewish women to end their religious marriages and secure a get are included as part of the statutory definition of domestic abuse. This would be on the grounds of domestic abuse by way of controlling and coercive behaviour and psychological abuse, and of economic abuse where that is a factor.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said in her detailed opening speech, the amendment is intended to help women who are unable to leave a failed marriage, and is specific only to Jewish religious laws; there is no intention to undermine the Jewish courts. Including it in the Bill would provide the opportunity to ensure that its provisions and protections were applicable to all, and that it specifically recognised the plight of those women, removing the shadow of abuse and control, and restoring their right to exercise their faith through their ability to remarry and have children within their faith. That recognition would also offer them other protections under the Act, once the Bill is passed, if they were specifically included.
It is in line with a key objective of the Bill to raise awareness and understanding of domestic abuse and its impact on victims. Key is the ability of women to bring a case where they can retain control of the process as the victims, rather than as a witness in a prosecution having criminal sanctions as a civil party. Through tabling such an amendment, the issue can be usefully raised, and seeking legislative change could be ground-breaking for chained women.
This group highlights what so many noble Lords have been saying. The Bill must work for all victims, and to do this, it must grapple with the reality of how domestic abuse is experienced in all the different ways that it is by those living with it and those trying to escape it. I sincerely hope that the Minister can work with the noble Lords sponsoring this group of amendments to review this important issue and achieve a positive resolution.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments, particularly my noble friend Lady Altmann for her very good introduction. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, that it is not his noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar responding, but I know that he will be listening to every word I say and will correct me where I am wrong. I also thank him for some of the compelling stories that he outlined—some absolutely tragic cases which I know that all noble Lords will sympathise and empathise with. I thank all noble Lords who have engaged with me on this subject. It has been a real education for me, outlining the situations that some women find themselves in.
I will take these amendments one by one to address them properly. Amendments 3 and 5 would add a sixth limb to the list of behaviours in Clause 1(3) which count as abusive, namely the unreasonable refusal, or the threat thereof, to agree to the granting of a religious bill of divorce, or a get, which is necessary to dissolve a Jewish religious marriage. I am all too aware of the real hardship suffered by women refused a get by their husbands. As already outlined, such a woman is unable to remarry under the auspices of Orthodox Judaism. Furthermore, as a woman regarded in Jewish law as still being married, any children she goes on to have with another Jewish partner will themselves be severely restricted, as a matter of Jewish law, in who they are later able to marry. The term applied in Jewish law to such a woman, “agunah” or “chained”, is, as my noble friend Lady Altmann pointed out, both apt and tragic. I know that Jewish religious authorities are concerned about the problem, but they have not so far found a solution to it within Jewish religious law.
All too often this will be about the exertion of control by one spouse over the other, as noble Lords have pointed out. There could well be situations where the refusal of a get might constitute controlling or coercive behaviour, depending on the facts of an individual case, and this would sit better in the statutory guidance on domestic abuse provided for in Clause 73 than in the Bill.
The list of abusive behaviours in Clause 1(3) is deliberately drafted at a high level, to provide a clear and easily understandable summary of what constitutes domestic abuse. Including very specific circumstances in this list could lead to pressure to include other such circumstances, which would make the definition unwieldy. It could also create the impression that there is a hierarchy of abuse, which of course there is not. It is these more specific circumstances that the statutory guidance is designed to address, and I am more than happy to work with noble Lords to discuss what such content might look like.
Amendment 169 seeks to ensure that this guidance and the statutory guidance issued under Section 77 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 include in their discussion of controlling or coercive behaviour the unreasonable refusal to grant a get. We wish to avoid, as far as possible, prescribing in statute what statutory guidance must contain, which can arguably defeat the purpose of producing that guidance. My noble friend will be aware that, in response to significant concern from a large number of parties, Clause 73(3) does provide that guidance issued under the Bill must recognise
“that the majority of victims of domestic abuse… are female.”
However, including the specific issue of Jewish religious divorces similarly in the Bill would lead to pressure for a large number of other topics to be so included—as beautifully illustrated by my noble friend Lord Moylan—which could in practice end up reproducing much of the substance of the guidance in the Bill. My noble friend will have just heard my commitment to referring to this subject in the guidance.
Amendment 168 seeks to amend Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 to ensure that the person who unreasonably refuses a get, and their spouse, are regarded as being in an intimate personal relationship with each other, and therefore count as personally connected, which is a prerequisite for the application of the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour, as noble Lords have pointed out. I understand the intention behind this amendment. My noble friend may be aware that in our White Paper on domestic abuse, published in January 2019, the Government committed to undertake a review into the controlling or coercive behaviour offence. That review, which has considered evidence surrounding the effectiveness of that offence, will be published before Report, and the Government will consider their position in relation to that offence after its publication, in the light of the content of the review and any other information brought to our attention. Therefore, my noble friend’s amendment may be slightly premature.
Amendment 170 seeks to ensure that the unreasonable refusal to consent to a get be regarded as a significant factor in the consideration of whether a person has suffered domestic abuse, particularly whether the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour has been committed; whether a domestic abuse protection order should be issued; and the production by relevant local authorities of strategies for the provision of domestic abuse support, as required by Clause 55. On the first limb of that, the determination of domestic abuse, my remarks about what it is appropriate to include in the Bill and what to include in guidance apply equally.
On the two limbs which refer to court proceedings, it would not be appropriate for the Government to direct the judiciary in this way as to what it might or must consider, and nor is it necessary. The conditions which must be satisfied before a court can make a domestic abuse protection order will already enable a court to make one in relation to this behaviour, if it amounts to abusive behaviour under Clause 1(3). It is therefore unnecessary to make specific provision that a court must consider this sort of behaviour. It would also be the first provision of its type in the Bill, and lead to pressure for other considerations to be included in the Bill as factors courts must consider.
On the final limb, relating to local authorities, we are not otherwise specifying what local authorities must consider when drawing up their strategies. Strategies will relate to general provision in the local authority area, and it would be very odd for the only such provision to refer to a situation which relates to a very small number of people at most. However, again, I reassure my noble friend that this issue will be considered in the statutory guidance, to which local authorities will refer. I hope that in the light of this explanation, my noble friend is happy to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate, and I appreciate the excellent contributions from across the House and the very thoughtful way in which this issue is being dealt with. I also thank my noble friend the Minister for her excellent response and my noble friend who is not responding for what appears to be an excellent briefing provided to my noble friend on the Front Bench.
I respect the Minister’s concerns about the inclusion of these provisions, and I thank her for her offer to continue discussion and consideration of how this important issue could be included in the statutory guidance at the very least. I take the point that it concerns a small number of people, but it has a dreadful effect on them. I also welcome her confirmation that the review of coercive and controlling behaviour, associated with the Serious Crime Act 2015, will be published before Report. Obviously, I will study that when it is released, and perhaps we can build on it in some way going forward.
Of course, I have sympathy with, and am sensitive to, my noble friend Lord Moylan rightly pointing out the potential dangers of reading across from these amendments to other religious reasons for objecting to a divorce. That is why the amendments consistently specify “religious Jewish” divorce and “unreasonable” refusal to agree to the dissolution of a Jewish marriage.
Most of the most difficult cases are instances of an individual wilfully refusing, or threatening to refuse, a get on the grounds of seeking to abuse their wife by continuing to control her life—or even to coerce her to fulfil unreasonable or extortionate demands, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. Jewish law specifically facilitates divorce, but it puts the power in husbands’ hands. However, if objections are reasonable, rather than abusive, they would not be covered by these amendments, which were specifically designed for the problem of women in this country not being able to move on with their life due to religious Jewish hold-ups.
I thank everyone—all colleagues across the House, my noble friends and the department—who has respectfully and carefully considered these amendments. I hope that we may continue the discussion because it is such an important issue to many noble Lords, it seems. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 3.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 6. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate, and anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 2: Definition of "personally connected"
Amendment 6
Baroness Butler-Sloss
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 6, 8, 9 and 14, in my name, and support Amendment 10, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. Having listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and others said in the previous group of amendments, I make the point that what I will talk about affects a lot of people from a considerable number of communities.
Amendment 6 is quite short. It deals with the possibility of not being related but being a guardian. It refers to teenage marriages in a forced marriage situation, since some young people may be abused by their guardian rather than someone to whom they are related.
However, Amendment 8 is more important, and it has two parts. First, it concerns those “in a forced marriage”. I put that in despite the fact that there is legislation on forced marriages and, if there is domestic abuse, the question of whether the person being abused is in a forced marriage may not make a great deal of difference. It is really a question of awareness. Secondly, and more importantly, it addresses situations where
“one person is forcing the other into a forced marriage with another person.”
This happens to young women and men, both under and over the age of 18, across a considerable number of communities: ultra-Orthodox Jews, Sikhs, Muslims, Travellers, Hindus and others. The abuse is generally coercive: the abuser says to the young person, “You are to marry the person we have chosen”. Gay men are particularly at risk because, if it is known that a young man is gay, the family is particularly anxious that he should marry.
What is particularly worrying is that the abuse is not necessarily just coercive. It can become physical and there are instances, if the girl has said that she does not want to marry the man chosen by the family, it is seen as a shame or blot upon the family, and they kill her—a case of so-called “honour abuse” or “honour violence”. I saw actual examples of such extreme cases when I was a judge, and they go on today.
This is extremely concerning because it is domestic abuse, not between spouses or partners but within the family. It is very important that forced marriage is well understood, despite the legislation, because there is no widespread recognition that forced marriage can be, and often is, a part of domestic abuse. The reference to “a forced marriage” applies not only to ultra-Orthodox Jewish families but others where the wife is unable to end the marriage. This happens in a number of communities.
Amendment 9 deals not with forced marriage but modern slavery, an issue with which I am also very much involved. Under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, women who are in domestic servitude are seen as slaves, but what is happening is also domestic abuse; it may not be between those who are married, partners or related but women who come into this country, very often to work for a family, and are treated abominably. They are physically, and sometimes sexually, abused, which is domestic abuse and requires to be understood.
Amendment 10, the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, addresses those who are not related or spouses but may be living in the same household and need, none the less, to be taken into account as part of the group who are domestic abusers.
Amendment 14 deals with children and a specific, rather important, gap in Clause 3. At the moment, the Bill deals with people related to, or personally connected with, each other. What it does not deal with is the fairly frequent situation in which the mother of a child or children has a number of successive partners. Those partners may either live with her in the same household or visit regularly, but not live in the household. They can equally well, and undoubtedly do, abuse the woman to the detriment of the children. It is an extremely worrying situation. As a judge, I have heard endless cases where a woman has been abused by a man who has been visiting her every day for several hours and has taken the opportunity to treat her very badly. The children, of course, have either witnessed it or been in the next room, cowering and not knowing whether they will also be abused.
It is very important that forced marriage and modern slavery, particularly forced marriage, are recognised as coming within the definition of domestic abuse. Although the legislation is there, as I have said, it does not cover these situations. It particularly does not cover the fact that the agencies do not seem to know about it. It is for that reason that I urge that these amendments be recognised and I hope they will become part of the Bill. I beg to move Amendment 6.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 7, which would ensure that a carer of a person with disabilities is included in the definition of “personally connected”, together with Amendment 12, which inserts the term “provider of care.” This means any person who provides ongoing emotional, psychological or physical support to another, with the aim of enabling that person to live independently, whether or not they are paid for this support. Clause 2 gives a definition of “personally connected”, including those who are or have been married or in an intimate relationship. On the definition of “personally connected”, the Bill should reflect the realities of all domestic abuse victims who need to be able to access services, justice and support. No victim should be left behind.
These amendments would ensure that “personally connected” also covers a person’s relationship with their carer, paid or unpaid. This is to reflect the lived experience of disabled victims of domestic abuse, where a significant personal relationship in their life is with the person who provides care. This is a Bill for all victims, and we believe that this would help ensure that disabled victims are represented in this legislation. We have heard the Government say that the abuse of disabled people by their carers is already covered by existing legislation. Indeed, Section 42 of the Care Act 2014 places such a duty on local authorities. However, this Bill is for all victims of domestic violence and it is flagship legislation. It should not be that disabled victims have to be provided for elsewhere.
The unamended clause does not recognise the lived experiences of disabled victims of domestic abuse, who are among the most vulnerable. It is abuse that often goes unnoticed. Disabled victims are more likely to experience domestic abuse for a longer period: 3.3 years on average compared with 2.3 years for non-disabled victims. The Bill should make it easier for disabled victims of domestic abuse to be recognised. Therefore, there has to be an understanding and acceptance of the reality of disabled lives. Significant relationships can be different from those of a non-disabled person with an unpaid carer.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on the way she introduced her group of amendments. I fully support Amendments 6, 8, 9, 10 and 14, relating to forced marriages and people in domestic service. Her highlighting of the gap in Clause 3 relating to people who are personally connected in this way is a really important contribution to this debate and, potentially, to the Bill.
I have added my name to Amendments 7 and 12, so excellently explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. I would also like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, in her Amendment 11. Each of these amendments relates to including the providers of care in the Bill, be it for disabled people or for elderly people who need care.
The definition of domestic abuse could be widened to consider abuse perpetrated by those who are in trusted positions providing either paid or unpaid care. We have heard terrible examples of people being abused by those in positions of trust, whether friends or neighbours, though it can also be family members, and it can also relate to financial abuse. I ask the Minister to ensure that the particular position of disabled people and the elderly who rely on carers is fully taken into account in the Bill.
I wonder whether independent domestic violence advocates might be funded to reach out to more patients in hospitals or in other settings who are over a certain age or disabled in some way. I also wonder whether there could be better training for healthcare practitioners to be able to identify domestic abuse when they are involved with, assessing or looking after older or disabled people in hospital or other settings who might be suffering silently from various forms of abuse.
I welcome the expansion of the definition of domestic abuse in the Bill and the specific inclusion of statutory inquiries into suspected financial abuse, as set out in the Care Act 2014. I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure us about the intention to include these groups and I look forward to her reply. Once again, I congratulate those who have laid these amendments, which are important for us to discuss in Committee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 13, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Paddick, does not seek to broaden or narrow the amendment to which the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, has spoken, but rather to understand what is meant by “live independently” in the context of carers. The term “independent living” is a familiar one, but I do not know whether that is quite what is intended here. Needing support to live in one’s home, which I regard as hugely important, does not to me feel like independence. The relationship is very much about dependence, or trust, which was the term used by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. That is the extent of the reason for Amendment 13, but I am glad to be able to comment on some of the other amendments in this group.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, have identified a number of significant situations. The noble and learned Baroness described situations, in the plural, as she carefully explained, relating to forced marriage, which came over vividly. She has an amendment about guardians, a term that has expanded beyond its original technical meaning. She and I have often been involved in discussions about the needs of children who have been trafficked where guardianship has featured. I would never challenge the noble and learned Baroness and I have not done my homework, so I hope that she will forgive me, but I wonder whether a guardian has parental responsibility and, if so, whether that would cover the situation.
The noble and learned Baroness and I have also been involved in many debates about domestic servitude and I would be interested to know what is sought to be achieved by, and the consequences of, Amendment 9 beyond identifying behaviour already criminalised under the Modern Slavery Act. Is it something about protection or prevention?
In Amendment 14, the noble and learned Baroness points out a lifestyle that may not be covered. Its significance lies in Clause 3, which relates to children as what I wrote down as “collateral damage”, a term that I am slightly embarrassed to use, but noble Lords will understand what I mean. I had at one point wondered about lodgers who are in the same household, but I decided not to pursue that. I was going to ask the noble and learned Baroness what she envisaged as a consequence of that amendment, but I think that she has explained it. It is certainly partly the need for greater awareness on the part of the authorities to the situation of those in domestic servitude to whom she has referred.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 10 is in my name and is supported by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I support the amendments in her name—Amendments 8, 9 and 14. We should explore the definition of “personally connected”. I am not sure that the Bill as we see it includes all those people who could be included as personally connected.
Amendment 9 is about domestic servitude and I should declare my interest as a deputy chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation, along with the noble and learned Baroness—domestic servitude has been a long-standing issue for us. I recognise that there are other possible categories of people who are in the same household. My understanding of the word “domestic” is that it means “in a home”, so “domestic abuse” should cover those people who are ordinarily staying in that household, which is why I have put down Amendment 10.
The Minister may well say that some of these instances are already covered by other Acts and I would not think that that was not necessarily the case, particularly in connection with the other amendments dealing with disabled people and carers. However, I remind my noble friend that, when we were working on the early stages of Modern Slavery Bill, one of the reasons for the Bill was to put all the legislation together so that it was less confusing not only for the courts but for the police and other authorities. I ask that we have a serious look, before Report, at how “personally connected” could be better defined.
I would also like to speak to Amendment 8 on forced marriage, which is again in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and which she explained admirably, as always. I watched a compelling drama on television a few months ago, which was based on fact, about honour killing. Watching that shocked me, and we have to take every opportunity to try and address something like that—though that ultimately ended in murder and was dealt with by the appropriate legislation—which in many ways starts with abuse.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 7, 12 and 13 in this group, but today I am speaking to moving Amendment 11 as my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson is, unfortunately, not able to be in her place.
As someone who is supported by personal care assistants 24/7, I have a deep understanding of this territory, and I was sorry not to have been able to participate at Second Reading. Amendment 11 is a probing amendment, and it raises challenging issues which need tackling. The amendment is similar to Amendment 12 proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport. It has been tabled in response to disabled peoples’ express plea that the Bill should address the covert abuse that some individuals experience from a carer, whether paid or unpaid. Carers often have a close connection to the person they are supporting, through their personal care or day-to-day activities.
While most who care for disabled people do so with great kindness, respect and the best intentions, there are a significant number who do not, and who go on to abuse those who rely on them. Society finds it hard to believe that somebody would abuse a disabled person who cannot fight back—somebody like me. However, the 2018-19 Crime Survey for England and Wales found that people with long-term illnesses or disability were more likely to experience domestic abuse than those without. The abuse that they experience is often directly linked to their impairments and is perpetrated by the individuals that they are most dependent on for care.
In the absence of any close family or friends, carers are considered as welcome substitutes by some disabled people who are isolated and feel lonely and anxious. In the main, this is a mutually kind and equitable relationship. However, evidence shows that, on occasions, the situation is sometimes exploited by the carer, leading to an abuse of power and pervasive means of coercive control. As stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, examples of stealing, physical harm and bullying are more common than anyone would care to acknowledge.
Such victims need to be able to confidentially access justice and independent support services, when faced with a carer abuser. This is very challenging when the disabled person requires help to carry out the simplest of tasks and has no one to ask to help them to contact these people. This amendment could ensure that disabled people who require paid or unpaid people to support their day-to-day existence are adequately protected from domestic abuse. Currently, there is no clear route which carries out this function adequately.
The Government are not yet convinced of the necessity to include disabled people. They say that if the carer is a family member or a partner they will be covered by the Bill, because that is a significant personal relationship. In other cases, abuse of a disabled person by their carer is already covered by existing legislation. However, not all carers are necessarily regulated by existing legislation, yet the relationship they have with disabled people can be just as significant. Such carers often support the individual in very intimate ways. Strong, particularly close, personal attachments can occur, very similar to that to a partner or relative. It also takes place in a domestic setting.
Further, the existing protection is clearly not working. If the treatment of a disabled person amounts to behaviour that is “abusive” under Clause 1(3)—if it is controlling, coercive or threatening, or it involves physical, sexual, economic or psychological abuse—it seems wholly wrong to exclude it. Of course, this will not be the first time that disabled people’s concerns have been left out of mainstream public rights. Let us not do it again here.
I appreciate that Section 42 of the Care Act 2014 places a duty on local authorities to carry out safeguarding inquiries if they suspect abuse, but there is plenty of evidence to show that they are failing to identify victims, even those at highest risk. This Bill, with this amendment, could respond to the need for added protection. Many personal assistants who are employed by disabled people—I have that ability through my own personal health budget—are not regulated. We do not come under safeguarding measures. We are alone, to manage and control our PAs ourselves; it is something that we choose to do. I would want to know that this legislation covered me if I ever found myself in a situation where my PA was abusing me.
I will give just one harrowing example of why the relationship of carers and disabled people needs to be covered by this Bill:
“A neighbour befriended a woman with learning disabilities, became her carer and provided her with support. He then demanded sex and verbally abused her because she would not have sex with him.”
This woman experienced abuse by a neighbour whom she trusted, who had, in effect, become a close family friend and carer; someone with whom she felt a personal connection; somebody who had access to her house at any time of the day.
Disabled people face huge barriers in getting support from the services that are available today. We are all acutely aware of the crisis that exists within social care and the inadequate capacity to respond to such cases. In addition, it is extremely difficult to access domestic abuse services if you are a disabled person. We have to find a way to ensure that, if a disabled person experiences abuse by a carer, they have the same rights as any other victims who fall within Clause 2(1). This amendment will make the Bill as inclusive as possible, to protect all those who are abused in a domestic setting and afford them the same access to justice.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, and her powerfully argued and richly detailed speech. I plan to be brief, as the case for these amendments, which collectively address a lack of comprehensiveness in the Bill, has already been made quite clearly.
Amendment 8 in this group, in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and to which I have attached my name, addresses forced marriages and abuse within them. The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, has perhaps previewed some of the responses we might expect from the Minister in saying that many of the issues raised here are covered by other Acts. However, it is worth noting, as many noble Lords did in their first speeches, particularly on the second group, how important and ground-breaking this Bill is. It is taking us on to new ground and covering issues and areas around criminal and abusive activities that may be partially covered in other Acts, but not with the same strength and width.
I will also briefly mention Amendment 9 on domestic servitude. It made me think of a visit I made many years ago to Migrant Rights’ Network, where, sadly, I met an early victim of the hostile environment—someone clearly in need of asylum but who had been denied it and found themselves living in a household situation that they regarded as a family, domestic situation but was clearly effectively an abusive employment situation. It is really important that we make sure the Bill covers those kinds of situations, because the line between domestic and employment is not always as clear-cut as one might expect.
It is really important that this Domestic Abuse Bill is as comprehensive as possible. As written, it is very powerful; I am confident that, when it leaves your Lordships’ House, it will be even more powerful and effective. It is important that that protection is extended to as many people as possible. Structures of households are many and varied. We need to make sure they are covered as best we can.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and to contribute for the first time at this stage of proceedings. I would like to pause for a moment and congratulate the previous Prime Minister, Theresa May, who introduced the Bill in its early stages in, I think, 2019. As she said at the time, this is a landmark piece of legislation, and I am delighted to see it progressing today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, powerfully and effectively made the case for why carers should potentially be considered as personally connected. I lend my support to the strong terms in which she expressed that. However, I will focus my main remarks on the amendments expertly moved and spoken to by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who speaks with great authority from her years of experience at the highest level in the family courts.
I would like to put a question to my noble friend. The Explanatory Notes and the Bill itself refer to a number of other pieces of legislation that are being amended and are therefore within the remit of the Bill, which is all to the good. Could my noble friend, in summing up, say whether there is a reason why the Modern Slavery Act and other pieces of legislation, to which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referred in speaking so eloquently to her amendments, were not included and the subject not brought within the remit of the Bill? I am thinking in particular of modern slavery.
Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendments 10 and 14 tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. It seems there is significant agreement on the need for these amendments, so I will keep my remarks relatively brief.
Amendments 10 and 14 are reasonable amendments that seek to clarify the wide variety of domestic situations in which abuse can occur. Numbers of people up and down the country are now accustomed to doing things such as renting out spare rooms and having people not related to them living in their household. Amendment 10 rightly recognises that when a perpetrator and victim live together in a domestic situation, the abuse should be considered domestic whether or not they are biologically related or in a romantic relationship.
Amendment 14 recognises that it should be considered domestic abuse when the perpetrator has regular contact with the home or lives in the home despite not having legal guardianship or a biological relationship with the child, as we have heard. Both amendments are about ensuring that the Bill is thorough in recognising what constitutes domestic abuse and in identifying the victims and perpetrators, to ensure that we can identify and intervene in the wide range of domestic abuse scenarios.
Amendment 10 relates to the legal definition of “personally connected” when assessing the relationship between a perpetrator and victim. The suggested insertion of the line,
“they are ordinarily resident in the same household”,
recognises that “personally connected” should capture those living in domestic situations who may not otherwise be in a romantic relationship or biologically related. As the definition of domestic abuse is set out in Clause 1, abusive behaviours, such as
“physical or sexual abuse … violent or threatening behaviour … controlling or coercive behaviour … economic abuse … psychological, emotional or other abuse”,
are all able to and do occur in domestic situations where the perpetrator and victim live in the same household, but are not in a romantic relationship. As such, I argue that those who live together should be considered personally connected, in the context of the Bill.
Amendment 14 relates to how we define abuse as domestic in relation to a child and recognises that children can be victims of domestic abuse where their perpetrator is not the legal parent, the guardian or biologically related. The suggested insertion of the line,
“the person lives in the same household as the child or regularly visits the household”,
broadens the scope of the different environments in which a child can be personally related to their abuser.
Children can be and are victims of domestic abuse, even where there is no legal guardianship or relation to the perpetrator, as this amendment suggests, when the perpetrator lives in the same domestic situation or is a regular visitor to the home. An obvious example, and why this amendment is necessary, is the case of a new partner to the parent or the child who regularly comes into contact with the child and may spend prolonged or regular contact in the home, or even live in the home, without legal guardianship. Abuse in this situation is self-evidently domestic, despite the abuser not having legal guardianship of the child. Child abuse is 40 times more likely when single parents find new partners. According to a study of children living in homes with unrelated adults, children are nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries, compared with children living with two biological parents.
In conclusion, both Amendments 10 and 14 are sensible and reasonable, and strengthen the Bill in its aims to promote awareness, and better protect and support victims of domestic abuse and their children. I hope that we find a way to take these amendments forward.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I speak briefly on Amendments 6 and 7, which I support. Unfortunately, I was cut off from making further comments at Second Reading as I would have exceeded the time limit. I seek clarification on Clause 2(1), which I would have mentioned then. On the face of it, it appears to cover most, I hope all, the eventualities of which we can conceive. But I must express concern when the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—who knows more about these matters than anyone else in your Lordships’ House—seeks to amend the Bill, and I endorse the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. They seek to add to the definition of “personally connected” in the Clause, with the words “guardian of the other” and
“lives in the same household as the child”.
An amendment that goes in the same direction adds the definition that one person is a “provider of care” for the other.
In my Second Reading speech, I would have referred to my recollection, as a very young man, a long time ago, of occasionally appearing in undefended divorce cases. To claim a divorce for your client, one had to satisfy the judge of, first, the grounds for the divorce, which did not usually take up much judicial time, and, secondly, the arrangements for the “child of the family”. That was taken seriously. The child of the family did not need a blood relationship. I found no difficulty with this extended relationship from the make-up of my own family.
Of course divorce law has changed considerably since that time, but on the face of it, if you couple the definition in Clause 2 and the words “parental responsibility”, having the same meaning as in Section 3 of the Children Act 1989, which I have reconsidered, it should be sufficiently all-embracing. Obviously the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is concerned, and the Minister should dwell deeply and give us clarification.
The mischief we are trying to cover adequately is the definition of parent and child and the words “parental responsibility”. My short point is, having regard to the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is the Minister satisfied that Clause 2 is sufficiently all-embracing? I would be surprised if it is not, but I am not a family lawyer. I have been only a criminal lawyer for most of the past 40 years. I hope the Minister will give the Committee the assurances which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and all of us would like to have.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, I suspect most members of the public think of the typical case of domestic abuse as being that of an overbearing man who physically bullies his wife or partner and often the children of the household as well. This Bill enlarges that paradigm at Clause 1(3) by skilfully categorising the very different forms that abusive behaviour can take—all those forms, I suggest, being bullying behaviour. The Bill also rightly recognises that although most victims are women, a sizeable minority —about a third—are men, and the Bill is rightly gender-neutral for that reason.
However, I still believe, as I said at Second Reading, that in treating domestic abuse as limited by the definition of personal connection in Clause 2(1), the Bill has been too narrowly drawn so that it does not capture many of the relationships that give rise to abusive behaviour within a domestic context. I agree with other noble Lords who have spoken that by this narrow classification, we risk unnecessarily and unwisely excluding numbers of victims and potential victims who are no less vulnerable and no less exposed to domestic abuse than those who fall within the proposed definition. It follows that I do not accept the Government’s response in the House of Commons to an amendment on carers, when the Minister, Victoria Atkins, MP, said that the Government had,
“tried to guard against addressing all forms of exploitative behaviour in the Bill”—[Official Report, Commons, Domestic Abuse Bill Committee, 9/6/20; col. 109.]
and so dilute the understanding of domestic abuse as being focused around what she described as “a significant personal relationship”. I fully accept the sincerity of that approach, but it fails to grapple with the reality that domestic abuse happens far more widely than the paradigm cases would suggest. I therefore invite the Minister to move from that position.
With some caveats, I broadly support all the amendments in this group. I see no reason, for example, not to include in the Bill abusive behaviour by guardians towards their wards, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has argued in support of Amendment 1, or abusive behaviour by carers of persons with disabilities towards the people for whom they are supposed to be caring. I also agree that it should not matter whether the care is paid or unpaid, nor whether the carer and the victim live in the same household. I also agree that the type of care involved should be broadly defined to include emotional or psychological care as well as physical care. I also strongly support Amendment 8 dealing with forced marriages, but I wonder whether its proposers and the Government may wish to consider the amendment further, certainly to ensure that it protects anyone at risk of being forced into marriage by the potential spouse rather than by someone else, as in the amendment as presently drafted.
Amendment 9, relating to abuse by domestic employers towards those in domestic servitude, makes reference, as I read it, particularly to those held in servitude contrary to the Modern Slavery Act or Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That is clearly what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, intended. However, it may be that the definition should be clarified or enlarged, so as to ensure that it includes all those who are coerced into working in their employer’s households in inhumane conditions, for vastly excessive hours and for hopelessly inadequate wages—if indeed they are paid at all. These victims have often been brought here from abroad as members of their employer’s households, and they are often frightened that, outside those households, they have no way of staying here legally and no means of support.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. I find myself in broad agreement with what he said about the need to broaden the categories of “personally connected” as set out in the Bill.
My first reaction on reading this part of the Bill was that we certainly need to be more inclusive of other relationships. My second reaction, I must admit, was that there were some relationships that should probably be excluded, as they would dilute the impact of the focus of domestic abuse legislation. For example, the relationship of landlord and tenant, without more to support a clear connection between them in a domestic setting, should not be within the scope of the Bill per se. I think that was a point was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Amendment 6, in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, would extend the legislation explicitly to guardians. I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, about the fact that this is probably, or may well be, covered by the legislation. I suspect that is true in relation to children in Clause 3, but I think it does not deal with the situation between A and B in Clause 2. I think that was the point the noble and learned Baroness was making, unless I am mistaken. Maybe I have misunderstood that; I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister and, indeed, the noble and learned Baroness, in concluding this part of our discussion, say in that regard.
But it seems to me that guardianship certainly needs to be included quite obviously for both areas. I just wonder whether it should cover the situation where A or B has been a guardian and is no longer a guardian, because I would expect the close nexus—the close relationship—to continue.
I have much sympathy with the case put forward on Amendment 7, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox of Newport and Lady Watkins of Tavistock, and my noble friend Lady Altmann; with Amendment 11, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, which was so ably, emotionally and correctly supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton; and Amendment 12, in the names of my noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox.
Essentially, consideration of this part of the Bill relates to what relationships the domestic abuse legislation should cover. Like the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, I think that the starting point should be: would we want to exclude anything where people are in the same household? As I said, some relationships, such as landlord and tenant, should maybe be excluded, but otherwise I see no reason to exclude anything where there is a close and trusted relationship, as there would be in the context of carers. Indeed, we really should recognise the realities of abuse today and the society in which we live, and that, in this pioneering piece of legislation, we are setting out the principles and frameworks of the law in this area for years to come. We should get it right and be bold.
I say that too in the context of Amendment 8 on forced marriages, so ably set out by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Some of the scenarios may possibly be caught by the Bill’s provisions where a forced marriage has already taken place, but there might be problems if the marriage was null and void . Clearly, it does not cover the situation where the marriage has not yet taken place. There is a very powerful, almost unanswerable, case to extend the definition of “personally connected” to cover this situation.
The same is true of Amendment 9, on domestic servitude, tabled by the noble and learned Baroness and by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. No doubt there are provisions in modern slavery legislation to deal with that scenario, just as there would be provisions relating to forced marriage and so on, but there is a powerful case for extending the protection and all the measures of the domestic abuse legislation to these situations.
As I said, we need to recognise the realities of life in Britain and the country we are governing today. I will listen to my noble friend’s response with interest, but there is a clear case for extending the definition of “personally connected”, which we are debating.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. I find myself on the horns of a dilemma. At Second Reading, I tried to set out how important it is that this legislation encapsulates, as far as we humanly can, all the possibilities that, if not included, would be felt to have let down the people we seek to help in years to come. I used the example of the first effort back in 2003, in the domestic violence and victims Act, for which I was responsible as Home Secretary, where we clearly took a step forward but a very tentative one. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for understanding and supporting what I was trying to say.
My dilemma is this. While I very clearly understand the thrust of the amendments and the critical nature of getting right the definition of “personally connected” to make the Bill work and watertight, and to enable the Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary to use it as an effective tool, there are real dangers in some of the amendments—not in the essence of what is sought but in the extent to which they make it difficult to decide which Act is to be used, first by the police in filling in form 124, then by the Crown Prosecution Service, and subsequently in our adversarial court system, where a substantial case has been made and knocked down because of the detailed nature of the definitions involved.
So I have some sympathy, as I normally have, with the Minister in how to get this right. For instance, I agreed wholeheartedly with the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and with the very thoughtful and powerful presentation from the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, reflecting the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to see carers involved, and I cannot see any reason why we cannot involve them. But we then drift into the situation of a friend who regularly comes round to the house and seeks to sexually abuse someone. Surely that would fall under the Sexual Offices Act 2003, for which I was also responsible. The wider you make the definition, the more difficult it will be to get a successful prosecution if you use the wrong piece of legislation.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, knows more about this than I ever will, because, although I was responsible for trying to develop policy, she had to implement it. It seems that we should try to do what we tried to do recently in another Act: the Minister should, once again, get people to come together to look at how the very sensible amendments being moved this evening can be tightened up, so that the legislation is broad enough to encapsulate the concerns that have, quite rightly, been raised. At the same time, it should not be loose enough to allow a very clever barrister—we have a number of them in our House—to run rings round the prosecution.
Tonight has been an excellent example of how the real concerns that exist out there can be reflected, as were the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in commencing the Committee stage this afternoon, when she referred to the organisations and campaigners, all of whom are helping us to get this legislation right.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for whom I have virtually unqualified admiration. I have seen what he has done over a long period of years and have agreed with a very great deal of it.
It is important that this landmark legislation is able to deal with abuse involving relationships between those who live in the same domestic setting or where there is a dependency within a domestic setting. That is why I give great support to the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, who spoke with great eloquence, force, lucidity and passion. What she said convinced me entirely. I hope that, when the Minister comes to reply, he will indicate a willingness to incorporate the amendment that she spoke to, or something very like it.
I want to concentrate my brief remarks mainly on Amendment 8, spoken to by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has just said, she speaks with an authority that none of us can begin to emulate or rival in any way.
It seems absolutely crucial that this landmark Bill, as I call it, covers forced marriage. I say that for one reason above all others. I have been privileged to attend a number of meetings arranged by another formidable Baroness—the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who has been conducting a campaign to underline the dangers of sharia law in the context of marriage. At those meetings, some quite exceptionally brave women—mostly very young—who have been forced into marriage, or who are threatened with being forced into marriage, have given testimony to colleagues from your Lordships’ House. What I have heard at those meetings has been not only moving but sometimes tragic, because a number of those who have given evidence to us have suffered bereavement within their family circle. I implore my noble friend to make sure that forced marriage is very much included.
It is very good to be able to give virtually unqualified support to a Bill, and I am delighted to be able to do so. However, I sincerely hope that this will be as comprehensive an Act of Parliament as possible when it comes into force, that so far as possible all domestic abuse will be included and that high on the list will be forced marriage.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, we are having some difficulty connecting to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, so the next speaker is the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a great privilege to take part in this debate. In her opening comments the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, echoed a profound sense of solidarity and all our best wishes for this Bill going through this process. We are very honoured to take part.
I wish to put on record my thanks to the many organisations that have so diligently briefed us; I also thank the Minister. As a former domestic violence officer and child protection worker, for decades I worked practically with families of survivors. This is an incredible opportunity to place their needs and well-being at the centre of legal frameworks. Recognition of the effect on children is long overdue.
I wish to address Amendments 6 and 8, and speak also to Amendments 11 and 12. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, whom I claim to be my noble friend, argues that this legislation should encompass matters of forced marriage victims and survivors within the context of the Bill, and I very much agree with her—I support her in her cause. Although I do not claim to have the legal wisdom or expertise of my noble and learned friend, my recommendation, as the chair of the Forced Marriage Task Force, was to ensure that we embed matters of forced marriage and murder—I have distaste for the words “honour killing”; it is murder, primarily of women but of course of some men, too—in mainstream legislation.
Like other noble Lords, I would like to see the eradication of disjointedness and silos in responding to victims, as though the violence that they experience is somehow different. Similarly, on Amendment 11, I am in constant awe of my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton, who is correct to assert that disabled persons have absolute rights to be heard within the purview of all public and mainstream rights to receive the necessary safeguards, protection and services that this legislation will afford and facilitate to all other victims and survivors of violence and abuse. This was very powerfully reinforced by my noble friend Lady Wilcox of Newport, and I am really grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for her insightful recommendations for trained advocacy. I hope that the Government will give their fullest consideration to her request.
I will make some general points in support of this group. Community-based services are a critical aspect of empowering survivors and their children. According to a survey undertaken I think by Barnardo’s, 70% of individuals experiencing violence wish to receive community-based support. Specialist services that may be needed to address their welfare may include housing support, helplines and support for children, as well as programmes for perpetrators. The statutory duty on local authorities to provide accommodation-based services must not lose sight of the equal status and weight being mandated for community-oriented services, or we may unwittingly miss or discourage many hundreds of thousands of women who could find it prohibitive to seek urgent help and flee their perpetrators.
Postcode lotteries in access to services are well established, and lack of specialist services are well acknowledged. Nicole Jacobs has said that she is mapping current services. I feel that such an exercise will miss the value of all those women-led specialist services which have been shut down over the years, particularly by local authorities which have marginalised the needs of women from diverse backgrounds. I speak with some knowledge. In my own area, two critical women-led services, the Jagonari Women’s Centre and East London Asian Family Counselling, have been shut down, meaning that all the clients that they served over 30 years have nowhere to go. Whatever the excuse or rationale of local male leaderships, the end result has surely been that many women have been further alienated from reporting abuse and seeking urgent support.
Many specialist organisations have been a lifeline for women, particularly those who lack confidence and knowledge of the system and how to report or manage available services. Therefore, this legislative framework must widen its scope to ensure wide-ranging awareness of this law, once it has been passed. Also, leadership across different institutions must explicitly mandate organisations meeting the needs of all victims and survivors who experience additional distress or fears of discrimination. Furthermore, they must be held to account at the local and national levels for the quality and consistency of services for some of the most vulnerable in our society. I am grateful that the domestic abuse commissioner will broaden her reach to communities hitherto beyond the reach of the usual suspects and approved organisations.
I am grateful to have been able to participate in this discussion today. I want to make two final comments. I listened with a great deal of respect and admiration to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on Jewish marriages. She is right to be very specific. There are issues pertaining to other faiths, including Muslim marriages, some of which are stuck in the sharia councils—not sharia courts but councils, like the Jewish councils—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but she is now referring to our debate on the previous group.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
Okay. I finish by saying that I am grateful for this consideration and hope that it may be extended to others. Finally, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer. I was deeply moved by her argument and would have taken part in her discussion; I did not manage to do so as I have not been well myself in the last few days. I am very grateful for the patience of the House.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 11, to which I have added my name. It is in the name of my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson and was powerfully introduced by my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton. It seeks to extend the definition of “personally connected” to both paid and unpaid carers. This reflects the reality for many people who require care or assistance due to having a disability and may have a significant trusting relationship with people outside their family. I also support Amendments 7 and 12 in this group.
A key part of the lives of disabled people are carers who are paid, and unpaid friends, neighbours or family members who provide care or assistance. These people are in a trusted relationship, a trusted position, and have access not only to the person’s possessions and paperwork but to the person’s body. They have access to medication and equipment. Trusting someone in this way creates a close emotional attachment to the extent that, over time, the carer becomes like family. However, such a personal connection increases the risk of physical, sexual, emotional and financial abuse.
We know, sadly, that disabled people are much more likely to experience domestic abuse than others. According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, 13.8% of disabled women experienced domestic abuse in 2018-19. This is likely to have increased during the pandemic. These statistics are likely to be an underestimate and do not usually account for abuse by carers with a personal connection. Speaking out may be particularly hard for women with learning disabilities, expressive disorders, those who speak little English, or those who may have been threatened with institutionalisation or losing their children.
Many disabled people live alone and have experienced difficult relationships with relatives. A carer may be the only significant person they are connected to, and they may feel that they have no one else to turn to if a carer becomes controlling or physically abusive. It is vital that paid carers are properly assessed for the risk of domestic abuse, and sufficient safeguards to prevent abuse must be put in. While many informal unpaid carers are often motivated by friendship, there are numerous case studies of some who have deliberately befriended a disabled person living alone to abuse them.
I have a concern about Amendment 13 as an amendment to Amendment 12, as it seems to possibly narrow protection for those who stay in supported living but whose main home is with their parents—neither home is their own, yet they may be victims. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I can see that there is a separate argument for strengthening the Care Act, as it currently fails disabled victims of any form of domestic abuse. However, having two distinct laws and processes for supporting different victims of the same type of abuse is discriminatory. As we will discuss when we come to best interests being used as an inappropriate defence, it risks leading to disabled victims not being protected or supported. Without a change in the definition of “personally connected”, we will fail to protect the victims of abuse by non-family carers and deny them access to the much-needed services available to other domestic abuse victims.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, given the length of the debate and the time, I have junked most of what I intended to say and will keep it really brief. I can understand that at first sight Clause 2 looks as though it covers a range of relationships, but when issues arise and the police become involved, we have to remove any loopholes the perpetrator could use. Therefore, at least some of this group of amendments should be seriously considered to be added to the Bill. The less that is in doubt, the better. I am not a lawyer, but I cannot see how guardians are covered in Clause 2, so Amendment 6 is an absolute must to be considered to be put in the Bill.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, it is never easy to make a truly original point at the end of such a full and interesting debate as the one on this group, so I will keep my remarks as brief as possible. In general, we have to be careful about diluting the definition of domestic abuse. We could be in danger of expanding it to the point where it begins to lose impact, duplicates laws already in place or worse still, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, stores up significant legal problems for the future.
However, to argue against myself briefly, there is significant merit in considering Amendments 7, 11 and 12. Some of the most shocking and disturbing evidence heard by the joint scrutiny committee was from Ruth Bashall, the CEO of Stay Safe East. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, read out a quote from her, so I will not repeat it, but it was compelling and moving evidence. As a result, after much discussion and consideration, the committee recommended that the Bill should recognise that the abuse of disabled people by their carers often mirrors that seen in other relationships covered by the Bill. We concluded that abuse by any carer towards this particularly vulnerable group should be included in the statutory definition. We also recommended that the Government review the “personally connected” clause, with the intention of amending it to include a clause that covers all disabled people and their carers, paid or unpaid, in recognition of the fact that this type of abuse occurs in a domestic situation. I stand by this recommendation.
Worldwide systematic reviews have highlighted the greater risk of violence generally for disabled people, showing that they are substantially more likely to experience threats of violence, physical abuse and sexual assault. The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, made an excellent and strong speech on this. Most people outside this House would be shocked to hear about the levels of abuse that disabled people have to put up with. SafeLives also produced a report showing that disabled people are far more likely—twice as likely, I think—than able-bodied women in particular to experience physical, sexual, emotional and financial abuse.
The other point that the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, made excellently is that the route out is so much harder and less clear. Domestic abuse suffered by disabled victims often goes unreported and unnoticed, and leaves these hidden victims without the support they need. We often have a chicken-and-egg situation, because the data and research on this group are limited, making it far more difficult to justify and advocate for the commissioning of services that respond to their specific needs.
The voice of people with disabilities is not heard often enough or loudly enough. I therefore hope that the Government will give due consideration to these amendments, which could have a significant impact on their ability to escape from what can so often be a prison in their own homes.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I think the general test for this group of amendments is whether the perpetrator of abuse has some power or hold over the victim and, through abuse, makes the victim feel unsafe in their own home. In that regard, the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell of Surbiton and Lady Wilcox of Newport, both made the important point about the close connection there often is between a disabled person and their carers, raising similar risks to other vulnerable people in intimate relationships.
I will take these amendments in order. If the victim is 16 or over and subject to abuse by their guardian—someone who has power over them—it seems only right that guardians are included in the definition of “personally connected”, as Amendment 6 suggests.
Similarly, a carer for a disabled person—someone who, to a greater or lesser extent, the disabled person relies on—should also be included, particularly if the care is provided in the victim’s home. Amendment 7 is perhaps too wide, albeit that the intention is to provide a safeguard for disabled people, in that someone who provides care to an able-bodied person would be included in this amendment as currently drafted. The more narrowly drawn Amendment 11 appears more precise.
Amendment 12, to which we have our Amendment 13, is arguably unintentionally too narrow in applying only to cases where the care is provided to enable independent living, rather than, as our amendment suggests, where the care is provided to enable someone to live in their own home, whether independently or not. I accept what my noble friend Lady Hamwee said: this may not necessarily widen the definition but simply clarify what independent living means.
I understand that those involved in coercing someone into a forced marriage may not be parents or other family members. They may be the family of the other party to the marriage, for example, but parents and other family members involved in such practices, as indicated in the Member’s explanatory statement, are already included in the definition of “personally connected”, as they are relatives. The behaviour would also be covered by the definition of “abusive” under Clause 1(3)(c), “controlling or coercive behaviour”, although I accept what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, says: it could also be physical abuse. I wonder whether the Minister agrees.
Amendment 9 seeks to include victims of the offence under Section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. I understand that such a person would also be a victim of domestic abuse, but I wonder whether they would need the protection of both this Bill and the Modern Slavery Act, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, alluded to.
Amendment 10 reinforces what I have previously said about someone who, as a result of abuse, does not feel safe in their own home. This might easily include someone who is part of the same household as the victim but not covered by any of the other definitions of “personally connected”, such as the victim’s sister’s live-in boyfriend. The sister and the boyfriend may be in an intimate relationship, but the victim is not otherwise “personally connected” to the boyfriend.
Amendment 14 concerns the separate issue of children as victims of domestic abuse who are traumatised as a result of seeing the effect on the victim and are related to the victim or the perpetrator. The example given is where a mother has several transitory relationships with men, who may live with her or visit her but are not otherwise connected with her children.
It is conceivable that such children might be traumatised by the actions of the perpetrator, rather than by experiencing the effects of abuse on the mother, making the amendment necessary. Bullying behaviour by the transitory lover could have a lasting and detrimental impact on the child, even if the mother’s reaction to it does not have any impact. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak on this Bill, so I hope that noble Lords will permit me to begin by agreeing with my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the wide range of noble Lords from all corners of your Lordships’ House who have paid tribute to my right honourable friend Theresa May for bringing forward this landmark legislation, as my noble friend called it. I mentioned in my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House more than a year ago that I hoped this Bill would see swift passage to the statute book. I hope this reassures noble Lords that I speak not just as a Government Whip but as an enthusiast for seeing this legislation on the statute book. I hope that we can conduct our scrutiny rigorously and swiftly, including of the nearly 200 amendments which have been tabled to it so far.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and others for introducing these amendments, and all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will begin with the amendments which seek to expand the definition of “personally connected” in Clause 2 of the Bill.
Amendment 6 seeks to expand the definition to include guardians. The Government have understood this to mean legal guardians of children under the age of 18, but we believe that the existing drafting already covers guardians to the extent that it is appropriate to do so. Clause 2(1) defines the term “personally connected” for the purposes of the definition of domestic abuse in Clause 1. Among those groups of people who are taken to be personally connected are two people who each have, or have at one time had, parental responsibility in relation to the same child. Subsection (2) goes on to define a parental relationship as being one where the person “is a parent of”, or has “parental responsibility for the child”. Subsection (3) then provides that parental responsibility,
“has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989 … section 3”,
which defines parental responsibility to include legal guardians of children. So, if the two individuals within an abusive relationship are, say, the birth mother of a child and a legal guardian or former legal guardian of the same child, then those two individuals would come within the definition of “personally connected”.
Amendment 8, in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, seeks to expand the definition of “personally connected” to include victims of forced marriage or those in a situation where one person is forcing the other into a marriage with another person. As the noble and learned Baroness said, this affects a large number of people from a wide range of parts of the community. She mentioned, for instance, gay men and women who are forced into marriage by their families and others, and that, sadly, it is often accompanied by violence or so-called honour killings. We are confident that victims of forced marriage are already captured under the existing definition of “personally connected” in Clause 2. Among other things, this provides that a personal connection exists if persons A and B are, or have been, married to each other, or if they are, or have been, in an intimate personal relationship.
We are also confident that victims who are being forced into a marriage with another person by a family member will also be captured under the existing definition at Clause 2(1)(g), which provides that a personal connection exists when person A and person B are related. Moreover, the draft statutory guidance clearly signals that forced marriage is one manifestation of domestic abuse.
That leaves one potential situation arising from Amendment 8, in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, namely where a victim is being forced into a forced marriage by somebody to whom he or she is not related. In this situation, the victim would not be considered “personally connected” to the perpetrator, and it would not be considered domestic abuse in the context of the Bill. Similarly, with reference to Amendment 9, victims of domestic servitude who are suffering abuse would not be considered victims of domestic abuse unless they were personally connected to the perpetrator as defined in Clause 2. That is because the definition of “personal connection” is key to the approach we are taking in this Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has given quite a long reply, which will bear reading. However, it sounded somewhat circular: the various groups referred to in the amendments are not within the definition. But that, of course, is why this long list of amendments was tabled. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, really nailed my concerns. I am not speaking from the point of view of someone who feels that their concerns have not been picked up, but I was unclear whether the Minister was saying that there were adequate remedies and protections for every one of the people covered by the amendments. I certainly did not feel that the Government accepted that being in the same household is very close to a personal connection—it is, after all, a domestic situation. I wonder whether the Minister can help further.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is right: it was a lengthy response, which I hope set out why the wide range of examples given by noble Lords are, we believe, already covered either in the drafting of the Bill or in existing statutes. She is also right to say that the debate will repay reading—for me, as well as for others—to make sure that we have indeed covered all the examples.
In brief, the dilemma, as encapsulated by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, is to make sure that, in seeking to cover the wide variety of relationships, we are not diluting the unique character of domestic abuse. A person coming into somebody’s household as a friend or as a temporary flatmate who may be there only a short time is in a different category from some of those other examples. I am sure that we shall return to this point throughout the scrutiny of the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
Finally, I call the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to respond to the debate on her amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
I thank everybody who has played a part in this quite long debate. I have learned a great deal from what so many people have said. Because it has taken nearly two hours, I propose—much to my regret, but perhaps to the pleasure of everyone else in the Committee—not to reply to any of the points that have been made, save two. I also thank the Minister, although I am disappointed, but not surprised, by his response to my amendments.
My first point, which was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, is that although a great many bits of the Modern Slavery Act had been in other legislation, it was thought a good idea to have an umbrella Act that would cover all those aspects. Nobody took the point that they were actually also found elsewhere. With this landmark Bill—as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has called it—I really do not see why we cannot adopt the same process as we adopted with the Modern Slavery Act.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I would be very happy, in deferring to the great experience of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to undertake to make sure that we have the same understanding of Clause 3. I am very happy to give her that reassurance as she withdraws her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We come now to the group beginning with Amendment 15. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 15
Baroness Stroud
Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to move Amendment 15 and to speak to Amendments 20, 172 and 179 in my name today. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, for her cross-party support of these amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, for her support of Amendment 172.
I am looking forward to noble Lords’ speeches as we debate the importance of recognising the most vulnerable victims of domestic abuse, and I am delighted that the Institute of Health Visiting, NHS England Safeguarding, the First 1,000 Days movement and For Baby’s Sake have all supported these amendments to improve outcomes for the youngest who are at risk of domestic abuse. We must seize the best opportunity to break the cycle of domestic abuse.
By way of context, Amendment 15, to Clause 3, clarifies that the term “children” includes babies from conception onwards, recognising the vital period from conception to the age of two, as highlighted by the first-class work of the First 1,000 Days movement. Amendment 20, to Clause 7, ensures that the domestic abuse commissioner’s responsibility to encourage good practice regarding children affected by domestic abuse includes babies in utero, infants and children under the age of two.
Amendment 172, to be inserted after Clause 72, makes explicit that the Secretary of State is to make provision for publicly funded trauma-informed and attachment-focused support for parents during pregnancy and before their child reaches the age of two.
Finally, Amendment 170, to Clause 73, stipulates that the Secretary of State’s guidance on the effect of domestic abuse on children will cover babies who were in utero during the abuse and babies and young children aged under two.
Why are these specific amendments needed? The Government are to be hugely congratulated on introducing Clause 3, which ensures that children can also fall under the definition of being victims of domestic abuse. I think all noble Lords view this as a major step forward. However, there is currently insufficient clarity in the definition of a child. In her concluding remarks at Second Reading my noble friend the Minister said:
No age group has been out of the debate, including the unborn child and the foetus.”—[Official Report, 5/1/21; col. 124.]
The fact that it was said demonstrates that it needs to be said. This amendment seeks to probe this concern and is looking for an assurance that the Bill covers children from conception to the age of two.
In the Bill, a child is considered a victim if he or she
“sees, hears or experiences the effect”
of the abuse. Without the clarity of this amendment, it is not difficult to see where the legal battles will lie. The unborn child may be just as much a victim of domestic abuse and may experience and hear domestic abuse but not see it. We can say in this House that it is our intention to strengthen support for victims and improve the effectiveness of the justice system. This amendment gives the clarity needed to ensure that the intent of the Bill to protect all children is upheld.
There are other reasons why Amendments 15, 20, 172 and 179 are so important. If we are serious about strengthening support for victims, intervening as early as possible has the best chance of success. Around 30% of domestic abuse begins during pregnancy, while 40% to 60% of women experiencing domestic abuse are abused during pregnancy. These statistics are shocking. The reason it is important that both the mother and the unborn are viewed as victims is because this is one of the most important developmental stages in the life of a child.
The first 1,001 days, from conception to age two, is a period of uniquely rapid development, when babies are particularly susceptible to their environment. Domestic abuse in pregnancy is associated with poor obstetric outcomes, including low birth weight and preterm weight. A mother’s emotional state can have a direct influence on foetal development by altering the environment in the womb, and ongoing stresses such as domestic abuse can disrupt babies’ neurodevelopment, which can affect the cognitive functioning and emotional regulation of children’s shaping and behavioural and emotional outcomes for years to come.
Another reason why these amendments ensure that the first 1,001 days are a policy and funding focus is that this is the optimal and most effective moment for intervention and breaking the domestic abuse cycle, which is a key focus of this Bill. Pregnancy and childbirth are major milestones in the lives of many mothers and fathers and the time when there is most motivation to change. New fatherhood is a motivator for change in men who use violence in their relationships. Therefore, intervening in the perinatal period and including a focus on parenting may improve engagement in programmes to reduce violence. Identifying the specific emotional challenges and unhelpful coping strategies that are relevant to new mothers and fathers can help target interventions at the most relevant issues to lead to behavioural change. Here I must give credit to Amanda McIntyre and the work of For Baby’s Sake; the organisation is nothing short of inspirational.
Finally, these amendments are important because Amendment 172 includes a requirement that the Secretary of State makes
“provision for publicly-funded trauma-informed and attachment-focussed”
support for parents during pregnancy and before their child reaches the age of two. Presently, interventions generally focus on supporting the needs of victims and survivors alone. Few seek also to target the causes and environments of domestic abuse and its associated consequences, in conjunction with perpetrators and children. Even fewer interventions adopt a whole-family approach that seeks to address the mental health problems experienced by parents and protect and support the mental health of the baby and other children in the family. By recognising babies in this Bill, we have an opportunity for early intervention—to break the cycle of domestic abuse not only for this generation but for future generations, and bring about some of that much-needed cultural and societal change that my noble friend the Minister referred to in her opening remarks at Second Reading.
I am also mindful of a number of concerns that have been raised with me about this amendment. I understand that there may be resistance to it, as children are already included in the Bill. However, having been involved in policy-making across government for many years, I and many noble Lords know that, when resources are constrained, policymakers reach for what they have to do, not necessarily what is most effective. The first 1,001 days—conception to age two—is a moment in time when the impact is greatest. Let us make it easier for officials and future Ministers as they battle for resources and ensure that this golden opportunity to break the cycle is not lost.
Secondly, noble Lords have raised whether these amendments could give opportunity to those wanting to reignite the debate around abortion. I have listened carefully to these arguments, as this is not the intention of this amendment. Ideally, the Government would come forward with their own amendment on Report, appropriately worded if we have not got it quite right. I assure noble Lords that this concern does not need to be an obstacle to this amendment.
NHS safeguarding already has good practice in place for managing this concern. At the moment, an unborn baby who is at risk of significant harm—for example, due to a mother’s substance misuse—can be placed on a child protection plan as an unborn baby. The baby is recorded on the CPIS under the mother’s NHS number; once they have been born, this transfers to the baby.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
Following the informative speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, on these amendments I will be very brief. I simply would like an assurance from the Minister that all age groups will be included in this legislation, and that it will provide support and provision not only for pregnant women and the unborn child but for children of all ages whose trauma began in utero.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, for her introduction to the amendment and reaffirm that there is no intention to set the unborn child ahead of the rights of the mother or of women. If anyone takes the wrong intention, I assure your Lordships that we will address this in any future amendment so that no confusion is possible.
The amendment essentially arises from programmes from which we have learned a great deal about intervention at the earliest stages to ensure that children have every opportunity to grow normally and prosper physically and emotionally, and that families are effectively supported to do just that. We know of several things that should lead us to want to ensure that this is addressed in the Bill. Around 30% of domestic abuse begins during pregnancy. Some 40% to 60% of women experiencing domestic abuse are abused during pregnancy. The single best predictor of children becoming either perpetrators or victims of domestic abuse later in life is whether they grow up in a home where there is domestic violence. That data comes from UNICEF.
When I was Minister at the Cabinet Office in 2006-07 I introduced an evidence-based programme from America called the Nurse-Family Partnership, which we renamed the Family Nurse Partnership Programme. We used health visitors in this country to work intensively with newly pregnant first-time mothers during their pregnancy, and then for the first two years of the child’s life. The nurse would visit the family at home, and early in the programme would show the young woman she was working with a picture of a brain of a normal child aged two and one of a child the same age who lacked stimulation and had been neglected. At that same age, the brains are profoundly different in shape and size. This graphically illustrated, and allowed the nurse to talk with the young woman about, the fact that the pregnancy and early months have such a profound effect on the baby’s development, growth and, of course, emotional development.
Mothers need support to offer what is necessary. The outcomes for this programme, which was been trialled for 20 years in the US, show that when the child is six years old they are remarkably better in a whole range of ways for the child, mother and—if there is a father—the father too. We know that real programmes like this work and there is very good research evidence backing this up.
The programme that the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, mentioned, For Baby’s Sake, also works with families who are vulnerable and tackles issues at the very earliest opportunity. The research from its work shows that almost all fathers who are involved in the programme and are part of such vulnerable families have been subject to domestic abuse in childhood. The intervention uses trauma-informed work to better support parents in those early days and months and during pregnancy. The birth of a new baby is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said, the time of greatest optimism from parents about the future of the child. It is therefore the optimum period for intervention. Evidence shows that without appropriate support and intervention at this stage, that optimism disappears after three to four months. Effective intervention works, and it is the best way of breaking that cycle of violence. Surely, that is what our ambition ought to be.
In the commission that I chaired, in the report Breaking Down the Barriers, we were able to show that a key reason for women not looking for help when they and their children experience domestic abuse was the fear of losing their children. This early intervention would open up the promise of support, rather than separation from the children. It would very much be welcomed by women who are fearful. We have the chance here to make a real difference, to intervene in a way that gives potential perpetrators a better way of coping with family life and makes sure that babies are not subject to domestic violence and all that we know follows from that.
This amendment will not be sufficient on its own, but it will be a significant step on the way to transforming this country’s experience of domestic abuse. It will transform the opportunities of families to break from violence being seen as the answer to their problems. I hope the Government will take this opportunity to work with us to show their real determination and ours to make that difference.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
After our next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, I will be calling the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top. I am delighted to speak in support of these amendments and join previous speakers in praising For Baby’s Sake. I will keep my remarks brief.
These amendments go with the grain of this widely welcomed Bill, and this visibility in public policy is essential if action is to follow. It follows that babies, both before and after birth, must figure in the Bill in the way that is specified in these amendments if their vulnerability to domestic abuse is to be taken into account. As my noble friend Lady Stroud and the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, both made clear, the statistics on the percentage of women who experience domestic abuse during pregnancy throw the importance of addressing this issue into sharp relief. As a lay person, it strikes me as entirely logical that the added stress resulting from domestic abuse of a mother instinctively desperate to protect her child—especially when it is at its most vulnerable in her womb—will be communicated to the baby and have a negative impact on its physical and neurological development. As we have heard, this has lifelong consequences for physical and mental health, and economically.
These amendments are entirely logical and add to the beneficial impact of this important Bill. I very much hope that the Minister will see fit to respond positively to them.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Domestic Abuse Bill offers an opportunity to deliver substantial improvements to the way we respond to domestic abuse and other forms of violence against women and girls. In preparing for this Bill, we have received a great deal of excellent briefing, and some very brave women have shared their horrendous stories of violence against them and of the impact that it has had on their children. Too often, children are the hidden victims of domestic abuse, and I was particularly struck when I read the briefing from For Baby’s Sake and the Institute of Health Visiting arguing that there are baby “blind spots” in policy, planning and funding which we, in this Bill, could do much to address.
I am no expert in this area, and I was startled to discover that about 30% of domestic abuse begins during pregnancy, although perhaps not so surprised that of those women who suffer abuse, 40% to 60% continue to experience abuse while they are pregnant. The consequences for those children later in life, and for public policy and expenditure as a result, are incalculable. The Covid pandemic has exacerbated this situation dramatically. The December 2020 survey by the Institute of Health Visiting found that 82% of health visitors reported an increase in domestic violence and abuse. In an earlier survey, 83% had perceived an increase in perinatal mental health issues.
As others have said, the first 1,001 days of a child’s life from pregnancy are crucial in safeguarding and nurturing babies’ development. Domestic abuse during this period increases the risks of poor outcomes and has an impact on long-term life chances. It is linked with poor mental and physical health, impaired social development and lower academic achievement, so it is really important to ensure that in the Bill, the definition of “children” includes babies to ensure that they can specifically benefit from targeted interventions to support parents, that the impact on them is recognised in the collection of data, and that they can be highlighted in the domestic abuse commissioner’s encouragement of good practice.
When she concluded at Second Reading, the Minister said, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, reminded us:
“No age group has been left out of the debate, including the unborn child and the foetus.” —[Official Report, 5/1/21; col. 124.]
I am glad to support the spirit of these amendments to ensure that this is reflected on the face of the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I call the next speaker, Lord Cormack. Ah, we have lost Lord Cormack, but we will try to bring him back. I call Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am rather surprised to see that I am down to speak on Amendment 15. As far as I was aware, I was not scheduled to speak, and there is not a great deal that I can add, but I have listened with great care to the debate so far and can speak from a little bit of experience.
My mother had me during the Second World War. My father was away. She had three teenage boys aged 11, 12 and 13 and she was working in a mill as a weaver. Going to work in the early hours one morning during a blackout, she walked into a parked wagon that she had been unable to see. She lay on the floor unattended to for an hour and a half, while she was carrying me. She was quite ill afterwards but managed to recover. I was told that this was possibly a reason why I have not been what you might call a straightforward individual. I had other issues later in my childhood, during a formative stage, which had quite an influence on me.
I was not scheduled to speak, but that is a little confession. It is true and it is about a life that was affected by what happened in the womb and then later, during my early childhood, so I speak with experience, so the psychiatrists and doctors tell me. That is my contribution. More work needs to be done in this area. What happens to a child in the womb and in the first two years are of vital importance, and more work needs to be done on that.
Baroness Newlove (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have had many speakers on this amendment from my noble friend Lady Stroud, whom I support wholeheartedly, not just because of what the amendment says but because of my past work talking about foetal alcohol syndrome. If you look at what happens in domestic abuse situations, this could be an example of what we are talking about today.
It is so important that we recognise and name babies and the unborn in the Bill, because we are encouraging parents to come forward so that they can get the help they want and need for themselves and their baby at this crucial time. I thank the First 1001 Days Movement for its fantastic report Working for Babies, and the For Baby’s Sake Trust. It is a common-sense report that explains that children aged nought to two have been deprived of services and forgotten.
I greatly admire what has been said by other speakers on this amendment. I would like to reflect on pregnancy and childbirth: as a mother of three daughters, I know that it is a major milestone in their lives—or for any woman, and especially for fathers and mothers coming together as a family. That surely must be a motivation to change. Domestic abuse is prevalent in health service contacts, and I would like to have more discussions on health visitors, which is not in this Bill, and antenatal services. We really need to look at nought to two years and ensure that these vulnerable families get the support they need. More importantly, we hear many reports about there being no father in a family.
There are incalculable costs of domestic abuse as a baby that occur in later life, such as crime, poor academic attainment, adverse mental health experiences, depression, suicide, and the inability to stay in healthy relationships.
It is very late, and we have more to get through, but I wish the Government would look at this and have further discussions with my noble friend Lady Stroud and the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, because it is so important that these babies are never forgotten. We must try and nurture them as we do seeds in the ground, to make sure they look healthy and have healthy lives.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
After our next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, I will be calling the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, for raising this crucial issue. There are four amendments in this group, and I would like to speak to Amendments 15 and 172.
Amendment 15 underlines the importance that the noble Baroness has rightly attached to recognising in the Bill the developing child in the womb. Amendment 172 seeks to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to make provisions for publicly funded trauma-informed and attachment-focused therapeutic work to be made available to all parents of children aged under two years old, where those children are victims of or otherwise affected by domestic abuse.
In parentheses, I also support Amendments 20 and 179 relating to the functions and powers of the domestic abuse commissioner and the Secretary of State.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, reminded us, at Second Reading the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, said—and I wholeheartedly agree with her—
“No age group has been left out of the debate, including the unborn child and the foetus”.—[Official Report, 5/1/21; col. 124.]
She went on, though, to say that noble Lords
“rightly drew attention to the devastating impact that domestic abuse can have on children and young people. I talked about the foetus earlier—those adverse impacts start when that child is in the womb. Growing up in a household of fear and intimidation can impact children’s health, well-being and development, with lasting effects into adulthood—in fact, all their lives.”—[Official Report, 5/1/21; col. 129.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is undoubtedly right. Her words reinforce the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, about the importance of naming the unborn in the Bill, which is what Amendment 15 seeks to do.
As it stands, the Bill’s definition of children does not adequately capture the child in the womb or acknowledge that they too can be victims of domestic abuse. As Amendment 15 recognises, and as other noble Lords have said, there are currently significant baby blind spots in the legislation; “a child”, as a catch-all term, does not adequately encapsulate the unborn’s unique experience of abuse in utero.
As the Bill stands, there is no requirement on the commissioner to encourage best practice in the identification of domestic abuse affecting the unborn, and likewise no requirement on the Secretary of State to issue guidance on how domestic abuse affects the unborn. This lacuna leaves a large gap in our approach to domestic abuse policy. The unborn experience of domestic abuse in utero can live with a person for the rest of their life. As the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said, it has been suggested that 30% of domestic abuse begins during pregnancy.
We can come to a fuller understanding of the issue by looking at it from a positive, rather than negative, perspective. I once participated in an inquiry chaired by the late Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, a celebrated Queen’s Counsel and former Attorney-General. The inquiry examined sentience in the womb. It concluded that, rather than being born as a blank slate or the first page of a new book, at birth a newborn baby already has surprisingly extensive experiences of the surrounding world. It was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, recount his own personal experience of the impact of an experience he had while in the womb.
Yehudi Menuhin, the renowned violinist who became a Member of your Lordships’ House, once said he first learned his love of music in his mother’s womb. Indeed, his mother was once told, “Madam, your womb is a veritable conservatoire.” Significant research has shown that listening to and experiencing music stimulates the brain of a baby in the womb and assists the growth of brain structures. Some studies suggest that babies remember music they listened to in the womb for months after being born. Music during pregnancy can have a soothing and uplifting effect on the pregnant woman, but also a positive influence on her unborn child. The womb can be a child’s first concert hall.
Conversely, as intimated during our debate, the Rawlinson inquiry also heard evidence of the effect of negative experiences on the development of a child in the womb and the long-term sequelae. Sadly, the unborn can experience any number of physical traumas when a perpetrator targets the baby violently while still in a mother’s womb. The research also indicates that domestic abuse during pregnancy is associated with poor obstetric outcomes, including low birth weight and pre-term birth.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, intimated, a mother’s emotional state has a direct influence on foetal development. As we have heard, stressors can negatively disrupt neurodevelopment in utero, which in turn impacts the cognitive functioning and emotional regulation of the child. This can be a life sentence. For all these reasons, I hope that Amendment 15 will be accepted.
I will also speak briefly about the importance of Amendment 172 about access to support for parents. The whole Bill is for naught if there are no provisions to allow people to get the help they want and so often desperately need. This admirable legislation is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to develop a step change in our response to domestic abuse. The reality is that the vast majority of victims—an estimated 70%--never set foot in a refuge and remain at home or in alternative housing. They must therefore have access to support that can actually change behaviour. We must recognise that these first days and weeks of life are also an effective time for intervention. Surely we want to be pragmatic with this Bill.
Like others, I was struck by an evaluation of the For Baby’s Sake programme, led by King’s College London, which provides trauma-informed and attachment-focused therapeutic support for parents. It found that support at this first moment—to which we can all point and say, “That is when I began to be me”—can harness parents’ motivation and empower them to make changes for their baby and themselves. The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, alluded to this in her excellent contribution earlier.
The Committee should note that a SafeLives report highlights that 80% of survivors said they think interventions for perpetrators are a good idea. A main conclusion from Breaking Down the Barriers: Findings of the National Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence and Multiple Disadvantage was the call from survivors for trauma-informed support to break traumatic cycles.
Trauma-informed and attachment-focused therapeutic work is about meeting parents where they are, not where we would want them to be. This therapeutic work should be publicly funded and accessible to all parents in the same way that we offer universal mental health support through the National Health Service. Amendment 172 is therefore about changing the cultural and social landscape around domestic abuse for the next generation. If we only fund refuge and not intervention, we miss a crucial piece of the puzzle in breaking the cycle of domestic abuse.
Amendments 15 and 172 provide the right architecture and structure, a firmer and surer foundation, for making the womb and early days a less dangerous place in which to be, and they help to create an environment in which the baby is loved, cherished, and nurtured. On a personal level, having recently seen the picture of a new, soon to be born, grandchild in the womb—a magical glimpse, now routinely provided by science, of the infinite beauty represented by the delicate formation of a unique, new human being—I am especially pleased to be able to add my voice to those supporting the noble Baroness and her cross-party supporters.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is an honour to follow my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool. In speaking in support of these amendments, I must declare an interest as chair of the Commission on Alcohol Harm.
I would like to reinforce the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, on foetal abuse by alcohol during pregnancy. The UK is estimated to have the fourth highest rate of alcohol use during pregnancy in the world, with an estimated 41% of women using alcohol during pregnancy. Alcohol exposure in the womb, particularly in early pregnancy, can result in foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, the severe end of which is foetal alcohol syndrome. It is the most common cause of non-genetic learning disability worldwide, and costs the UK around £2 billion a year. Neurological difficulties affect communication, comprehension, attention span, executive function, social skills and decision-making. The huge impact on the child’s wellbeing, from damage that started long before birth, may also be indicative of alcohol-driven domestic abuse later in life.
The Children’s Commissioner’s 2018 report, A Crying Shame, found,
“over 50,000 children aged 0-5 years old – including around 8,300 babies under 1 – living in households where… domestic violence and adult alcohol or drug dependency, and adult severe mental ill-health”
were present. These three factors are often found together.
Shockingly, 26% of 18 to 25 year-olds in the UK are unaware that it is safest not to drink when pregnant. What are we doing to make new mothers aware of the risk of foetal alcohol syndrome and the need to avoid the unintended domestic abuse of unborn children? What are we doing to help these women? The cyclical link is that they might use alcohol to cope with the abuse they experience but, in the process, they inadvertently damage their baby.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, explained, there is also evidence that a high level of fear in pregnant women can result in a high level of anxiety in the born baby. Although the wording of the amendments might not yet be quite right, the intention behind them must not be lost, and I hope that the Government will discuss better wording for them with the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very glad to support the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lady Stroud, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, and I have added our names.
It is important to note that the Bill deals with abuse of a particular kind—namely, domestic abuse. So far as I can see, it has no connection whatever with abortion, as somebody mentioned earlier. I am glad to support all that has been said. What the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, said about Amendment 172 is of particular importance, but I intend simply to generalise on all the amendments. All of them deal with children under two years of age and include babies in utero. I have two principal remarks that relate to them all.
First, damage to these children and babies is likely to have effects during the rest of their lives. For me, that is underlined by the magnitude of the awards of damages where negligence is shown to have been the cause of damage that occurred at this stage of their lives. Secondly, during this period of their lives, children develop very quickly and therefore, where abuse is inflicted over a period, the cumulative effect is likely to be magnified by that factor. The lockdown has, sadly, provided many of us with evidence of the rapidity of children’s development if we have experienced the birth of grandchildren or great-grandchildren during this time. Painfully, photographs show us how much of the thrill of contact in the early days we are missing. My final observation is that I believe that in some relationships pregnancy causes a deterioration, which leads to harmful effects on the child in utero.
For those reasons, where applicable, I strongly support these amendments. Knowing my noble friend as I do, I am sure that they will receive sympathetic consideration, particularly in view of her Second Reading speech. It is very important that this area of children’s development is taken into account as a very relevant factor in the context of domestic abuse.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, I acknowledge all the points that noble Lords have made on this group, and I totally agree with the sentiment that trauma to babies and small children is of the utmost importance in determining a child’s future. Indeed, I was saddened and sickened to discover that around 30% of domestic abuse begins during pregnancy, let alone the number of women for whom it continues throughout pregnancy. I am fully supportive of emphasising the need for help and support for mothers and the little victims whose chances are damaged before they are even born.
However, I want to express a twinge of concern about the wording of Amendment 15. It talks about
“including babies from conception onwards”
in the definition of a child. I have no wish to split hairs, but I am struggling with the idea that “shortly after conception” falls within any technical definition of “baby”. Would it be possible to get some clarity on that? I absolutely accept that it has nothing to do with abortion, but I want it to be technically correct.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, talked very informatively and movingly about pregnancy being an absolutely key time for intervention, as the whole relationship can be turned around, and the importance of resource allocation at that time. I particularly want to support Amendment 172: the requirement for the Secretary of State to make available publicly funded, trauma-informed and attachment-focused therapeutic work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, is absolutely right when she says it is about resource allocation, but I wonder whether babies are already included in this part of the Bill because children are already covered from conception, as the Minister said.
Whether this is the right place for them or not, I am happy to support these amendments. Even if the Bill already covers it, it is definitely worth the conversation.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Amendment 15 would add an unborn child, from conception onwards, to the definition of a child under Clause 3 of the Bill, which addresses the issue of children as victims of domestic abuse. Clause 7 provides that the domestic abuse commissioner must encourage good practice in identifying victims of abuse, including affected children. Amendment 20 would specifically add
“babies in utero, infants and young children aged under two years”
to the definition of children affected by domestic abuse.
Amendment 172 provides that:
“The Secretary of State must make provision for publicly-funded trauma-informed and attachment-focussed therapeutic work to be made available to all parents of children aged under two years old where those children are victims of or otherwise affected by domestic abuse.”
Amendment 179 states that, where the Secretary of State issues guidance on the effect of domestic abuse on children, it must include,
“in particular babies who were in utero at the time of the abuse, and … babies and young children aged under two years old”.
We fully agree that there is a need to consider the impact of domestic abuse on young babies and the importance of protecting pregnant women and the child they are carrying, and, likewise, with the fact that trauma from domestic abuse at a young age can have long-term consequences.
Clause 3 now recognises children who witness or are impacted by abuse as victims of that abuse—that is children of any age, including babies. I noted with interest the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, based on her experience of how officials react when resources are limited and there is any doubt about what legislation requires them to do. Adequate resourcing will be crucial to delivering the objectives of this Bill.
I appreciate that this has already been said more than once, but I repeat that it has been estimated that 30% of domestic violence begins during pregnancy. It often escalates during this time as well, and represents a real danger to women. We know that domestic abuse during pregnancy increases the risk of miscarriage, infection, premature birth or injury to the child once born, and it is also a major factor leading to complications and death in, or related to, pregnancy.
The impact of domestic abuse during pregnancy does not end at the birth, and is associated with long-term harms to both women and children. Domestic abuse during pregnancy is associated with increased risk of perinatal and neonatal mortality, higher rates of depression among women, low birth weight and a range of long-term emotional, behavioural and traumatic impacts on children.
However, we do have concerns about the possible impact of the inclusion of babies in utero in the Bill. Despite the risk of harm and attack faced by pregnant women, the current long-standing offence of child destruction is rarely used and the need to prove the perpetrator’s intention to kill has made securing convictions difficult. Yet a national inquiry found that some 24%, I think, of 295 maternal deaths over a three-year period were women who had experienced domestic abuse. Of these 70 women, 19 had been murdered. This is an area that the Government should review. In the meantime, it would not be helpful to have references to babies in utero in the Bill without consultation or wider consideration of the impact this could have on legal principles of bodily autonomy.
This issue with the amendment as presently worded is one that the movers—the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top—have recognised, and I am sure it can be addressed.
Finally, I reiterate that we recognise the importance of the general issue that is raised by the amendment about early intervention to break the cycle of violence and ensure support for mothers and babies.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and particularly my noble friend Lady Stroud for tabling these amendments. She and I—as well as every noble Lord who has spoken—share the commitment to protecting all children who are victims of domestic abuse. I noted that she and the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, and indeed my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, outlined the very different developmental journeys that a traumatised child will take through their life compared to his or her non-traumatised counterpart.
These amendments seek to recognise the impact of domestic abuse on very young children, including unborn children. Amendment 15 would make explicit reference to unborn children as part of the definition of a child under Clause 3. Amendment 20 is similar in that it would make explicit reference to babies in utero, infants and children under two years old in Clause 7(1)(c)(iii), which provides for the function of the domestic abuse commissioner to encourage good practice in the identification of children affected by domestic abuse. Amendment 172 seeks to make provision for publicly funded therapeutic services for parents of children under the age of two who are victims of domestic abuse. Amendment 179 would make explicit reference to unborn babies and children under the age of two in the statutory guidance provided for in Clause 73.
Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to debating the amendment, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, who put her name to it. These issues have hugely benefited from noble Lords’ various perspectives. I also thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern for signing the amendment. It is a huge privilege to have his support. I thank noble Lords for expressing their commitment to ensuring that babies are recognised as potential victims of domestic abuse in utero and through to the age of two.
I have looked at various government children strategies. Over and over again, unless it was an early intervention strategy or one specifically linked to the early years, each one I looked at did not contain nought to two year-olds. While I completely understand my noble friend the Minister’s comments that babies from conception to the age of two are already included in the Bill, it is my concern that unless they are in the Bill they will be forgotten again in strategy terms when we get to policy-making. However, I am reassured that she is personally committed to ensuring that all children who could be victims of domestic abuse are protected by the Bill. On that basis, and with the hope of future conversation with her and the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 16. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division should make that clear during the course of the debate.
Clause 4: Appointment of Commissioner
Amendment 16
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure the Domestic Abuse Commissioner is appointed full-time.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, with this group, which comprises Amendments 16 to 19, we turn to the role of the domestic abuse commissioner. I do not want to delay the commissioner-designate being able to drop that suffix—it is a bit tempting to refer to her as “elect”, but that is just what she cannot be.
At Second Reading I referred to the commissioner-designate’s energy and how much she and her team have managed to do without statutory backing. I was surprised to discover that the appointment is on a four days a week basis. That is the formal appointment, at any rate; it must be a challenge to keep to four days, if she does. I have not discussed this with Nicole Jacobs, and I must make it clear that this comes out of my head and is not something she has suggested. I suspect that she is far too professional to have done so in any event. I also suspect that she does not watch the clock. She would say that she knew what she was applying for; I would say that not making it a full-time appointment is mean-minded and gives a message about whether the Government regard the commissioner’s role and work to be as serious as it is. That is certainly not what they want to project.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who has had to withdraw from the debate, emailed me when he did so to explain that something had come up that would need his attention. He had previously emailed me to say that he very much agreed with this amendment.
Turning to Amendment 17, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner has the word “independent” in her title and so did her predecessor, because that is in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Personnel change and so can attitudes to the role on the part of the Home Secretary. The postholder can obviously change; people move on.
There has not been the same concern as during the passage of the Modern Slavery Act to designate —if I can use that term without it being confusing when used as a verb—the commissioner as independent through the means of the title. Whether that is because the various commissioners over the last few years are all spirited and clearly their own persons, I do not know, but titles are significant. Third parties would be justified in questioning the independence of a postholder so dependent on the Secretary of State as Clause 6 makes her.
Amendments 18 and 19, in my name and that of my noble friend, together amount to the right for the commissioner to appoint her or his own staff. Again, I point to the Modern Slavery Act, under which Section 40 provides that the commissioner may appoint staff—no more, no less. The commissioner will be restricted as to the numbers of staff and their salary levels, because their appointments will all have to be within a budget set by the Secretary of State. However thorough and sensitive the consultation may be when the Secretary of State appoints staff, we believe that the commissioner should be in charge and should be seen to be in charge.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am unclear as to the precise status of the commissioner. I have one key question: is the commissioner the accounting officer for the commission? If I knew the answer, I could either shut up or not proceed with any of the other points I want to make. I am not going to get an answer, but I invite the Minister to give an answer if possible, because it indicates certain things.
Amendment 16 would, it seems, prevent the commissioner taking on any other role which might be relevant or helpful to the role of commissioner. I am not clear as to whether full-time means excluding any other roles.
The whole thrust of Clauses 4, 5 and 6 is a worry because it appears that the Secretary of State wants to pull all the levers. This becomes really clear in Clause 8. I am therefore very sympathetic to the thrust of these amendments and the Minister will have to make a convincing case to avoid my supporting them at another stage. I also note that Refuge is very supportive of this group. Can we have a clear answer on whether the commissioner is the accounting officer for the commission?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Burt, for a series of amendments throughout the Bill in relation to the work of the commissioner. This is clearly a crucial role and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I have been very impressed with the performance of the commissioner in her designate role.
It is clearly very important that the commissioner is able to be as independent as possible. In the update she gave to the Public Bill Committee on her work to map out domestic abuse services, she expressed very real concern about local authorities redistributing their funding simply to meet their statutory duty and therefore deprioritising those critical community-based services that can intervene earlier and prevent a survivor being forced to flee to a refuge. She spoke of her support for migrant victims of domestic abuse remaining undimmed and said that much more must be done to support those with no recourse to public funds. This is very promising in terms of someone who is prepared to be robust. That we have received a brief from her supporting a series of amendments to the Bill is ample evidence of the robust independence that is required.
While I believe that this is likely to be a highly pressurised full-time job, I wonder whether it is necessary to put such a requirement into statute, as Amendment 16 proposes. There might always be circumstances where a commissioner was appointed with excellent qualifications who also some had some other commitments, and I would not want to lose that flexibility.
Baroness Newlove (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 16, 17, 18 and 19, which are of particular interest to me as the former Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales. Noble Lords may remember that I had to make a complete new office, once the first commissioner, Louise Casey, stood down from the role to take on the Troubled Families Unit. I fully understand how the designate domestic abuse commissioner, Nicole Jacobs, feels. I have full confidence in her as domestic abuse commissioner, as she is very articulate and knowledgeable, and brings a different context to the role.
I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the flexibility of a part-time appointment. When I began as Victims’ Commissioner, it was part-time, because I had my other role as champion for anti-social behaviour. The Victims’ Commissioner role was more or less full-time, so I was working for many hours not counted for. I had a conversation with the Secretary of State, and then worked full-time. I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on giving the commissioner the flexibility to have discussions with the Secretary of State, whether that role be full-time, four days, or three days. We should take a flexible approach.
Independence is an interesting word, and again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that it comes down to the robustness of the individual. Independence to people outside can mean one of two things: that one is independent from government and is not saying “Yes Minister”. Independence can also provide armour when having discussions with the Secretary of State and other departments. But it is important for everybody to recognise that the domestic abuse commissioner is independent from government because they are advising the Government on what is essential.
Amendments 18 and 19 are the most important: I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about appointing staff, which is something I had to challenge in my first three years as Victims’ Commissioner. It has to come from who you want to work with: if the Secretary of State picks your staff, this really does not show that you are independent. You need to feel comfortable with your staff, so that you can map out a plan of work you want to do and, to be perfectly honest, so that you can feel you have loyalty within your team and know you are going out there and giving independent advice back to government.
The commissioner must have the ability to appoint staff, but this depends on the budget as well. How big a budget you can have, and how much you can allocate to a proper team for a national role, is really important. I had six members in my team, finally, but this is a national role and it is so important that we support the domestic abuse commissioner with all the tools available.
On that point, I ask my noble friend the Minister: has the designate commissioner already got an office of her own, so that she can begin her role once the Bill gets Royal Assent? It is so important to have independence from government, so that victims and survivors of domestic abuse can have the confidence to come in to see the commissioner and can have clarity, and be able to feel, that they have an open, practical and personal office to come to.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned, it is robust experience and personality that will make the role excellent, and Nicole Jacobs is an ideal individual for it. I just want the Government to give her the tools to work with and the budget to enrol the staff that she should have to give confidence to those on the outside—so that victims and survivors of domestic abuse can believe in the role and the passion that Nicole Jacobs brings to it.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of the spirit of these amendments and the arguments so clearly explained by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Newlove, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. They have explained why these amendments are needed, certainly in spirit, even if the wording of some of them is not quite right for the face of the Bill.
If the commissioner position was made full-time and the commissioner was able to appoint staff, they could better determine the scope of work and allocation of resources to respond according to need. It is an important fact that the commissioner needs to have some control.
To take one example—I have already declared that I chaired the Commission on Alcohol Harm—we know that, in general, lower socioeconomic groups experience higher levels of alcohol-related harm, particularly violence. The poorest groups are most affected by alcohol-related domestic abuse. You see this with the number of instances of alcohol-related domestic abuse every year, which are fourteenfold in that group compared with the least deprived. The prevalence rate of alcohol-related domestic violence is five times higher among the most disadvantaged groups compared to the least disadvantaged.
This is a huge job. The commissioner must be free to make decisions on how the budget is used, have their own independent office space and not feel in any way stifled by any influence from government in the work that has to be undertaken.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee has outlined, the aim of this group of amendments is to ensure that the commissioner is independent and able to perform her role unhampered by time and resource constraints.
The term “independent” would be in the title, reinforcing, as with the role of the anti-slavery commissioner, that this person can be free to represent victims as they see fit, reporting to the whole of Parliament, not just the Secretary of State, and paid full-time. This has been questioned by several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. The thinking behind this, frankly, is that it is demeaning to the post to imagine that its holder could ever be regarded as a part-timer, given the scale of the challenge she faces. However, we did not intend that there should be no flexibility in the role at all.
The commissioner should of course appoint their own staff, carrying out the challenges of the role as they see fit within the constraints set out in this Bill; the ex-Victims’ Commissioner, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, emphasised this, showing how important that element is. It is a hugely important role: let us give her the tools to do the job.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Amendment 16 would ensure that the domestic abuse commissioner is appointed full-time. Amendment 17 would include the word “independent” in the title of the domestic abuse commissioner. Clause 6 lays down that the Secretary of State must provide the commissioner with staff and other resources; Amendments 18 and 19 seek to change this, so that the commissioner would appoint staff rather than the Secretary of State.
The Government clearly saw the role of the domestic abuse commissioner as part-time, but already that role has been extended from three to four days a week because, as the Government put it in Committee in the Commons, the designate commissioner
“told us she was doing four days of work a week.”—[Official Report, Commons, Domestic Abuse Bill Committee, 9/6/20; col. 133.]
How was the earlier conclusion reached that three days would be sufficient? Was it because the designate commissioner said that it would be sufficient or because the Government said that it would be sufficient? Are the four days that now apply meant to cover only the role of the designate commissioner or are they meant to apply as well, following this Bill becoming an Act and the commissioner no longer being designate, to the role when it has the full statutory responsibilities set out in the Bill? If four days is meant to apply to the role of domestic abuse commissioner once this Bill becomes an Act, will the four days be increased to five if the commissioner says that she is doing five days of work a week? On the basis of what assessment, and by whom, of workload and responsibilities did the Government reach the conclusion that this should be a part-time rather than a full-time position? I hope the Minister can give some responses to those points.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to appoint staff for the commissioner and provide the resources the commissioner needs to carry out the role. That gives the Secretary of State very real power over a commissioner who surely needs to be independent of the Secretary of State, bearing in mind that the commissioner must not feel inhibited from drawing attention, if necessary, to authorities and organisations that may be falling short in addressing domestic abuse issues, including government.
However, the Secretary of State, through the power to appoint staff and determine the resources needed by the commissioner, has a considerable oversight power over the commissioner and their effectiveness in delivering on their statutory role through the breadth and depth of work they can undertake with the resources provided. Indeed, Clause 6(1) states that the Secretary of State must provide the commissioner with the staff, accommodation, equipment and other facilities
“as the Secretary of State considers necessary for the carrying out of the Commissioner’s functions”—
not what the commissioner considers necessary, or even the view of an independent body or person, if there is a difference in view between the Secretary of State and the commissioner on this issue.
The former Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, Kevin Hyland, told the Joint Committee that looked at the Bill that he was concerned that the Secretary of State would have too much control of the domestic abuse commissioner’s budget and the appointment of staff. He said that immediately as he took up his post, the Home Office proposed a reduction in the funds Parliament had been told he would be given. Mr Hyland described the process of appointment of staff as “unbelievable”, saying that it could take many months—up to seven, I think he said—for staff to take up their posts. I simply ask what guarantees the Government can give that the issues faced by Mr Hyland will not be repeated for the domestic abuse commissioner. I also look forward to the Government’s response to the other points that I and other noble Lords have raised during the course of this debate.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for setting out her reasons for tabling these amendments and all noble Lords who took part in the debate on them.
Amendment 16 would mandate that the commissioner role be a full-time appointment. We do not think it is necessary to add that to the Bill. As has been noted in the debate, many statutory officers operate on a part-time basis, in line with similar commissioners, for instance, the anti-slavery commissioner and the lead commissioner for countering extremism—two other subjects which we take very seriously.
On advice from executive search specialists, we advertised for a part-time designate commissioner so we could attract as wide a range of suitably qualified and high-profile candidates as possible. As a result of that exercise, we found one such person, Nicole Jacobs, who was appointed initially on the basis of three days a week. We said at the time of her appointment that that time commitment would be reviewed after six months, and following that review, it was increased to four days a week with her full agreement. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, we will look again at that time commitment before commencing Part 2 of the Bill and keep that matter under review. But we would be denying ourselves the opportunity to appoint a highly suitable and qualified candidate in future if the legislation insisted this had to be a full-time appointment.
If I may say so, there is a slight tension between the amendments brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She wants to underline the independence of the commissioner by changing her title, but then setting out more clearly in the Bill how she ought to fulfil that role. That seems to be slightly inconsistent. It is also important to note that the commissioner is not a one-woman operation; she will be supported by an office comprising around a dozen full-time equivalent staff. Reflecting modern ways of working, that will be a mixture of full and part-time appointments.
Turning to Amendment 17, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that nomenclature can be important, and symbolically so. But I do not think we should get into the habit of labelling every commissioner or other statutory office holder in law as independent. Granted, as she mentioned, we have the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, but we do not have an independent victims commissioner, an independent children’s commissioner or, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, mentioned, a new independent commissioner created under the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill. I do not think any noble Lord would suggest that holders or previous holders of this office, such as my noble friend Lady Newlove, were any less independent because the word did not appear in statute in their job title.
Nicole Jacobs has amply demonstrated her independence from the Government—not least, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, pointed out, in the way she is campaigning for changes to the Bill. Her independence will come from the statutory framework provided for in Part 2, boosted by the provisions in the framework document, but also by the way she conducts herself once she is formally appointed in the role after this Bill receives Royal Assent. To add a word to her title in the Bill would in no practical terms augment her independence, so we do not think that amendment is necessary.
Amendments 18 and 19 would mean that the commissioner, rather than the Home Secretary, would be able to appoint staff for her office. Clause 6 provides for the staffing of the commissioner’s office by the Home Secretary, as well as accommodation, equipment and other facilities. It does so for a simple practical reason. We are creating here a statutory officeholder, not a body corporate. The commissioner will have no separate legal persona and therefore cannot, as a matter of law, appoint her own staff or otherwise enter into other contracts. To answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, the accounting officer function therefore rests with the Home Office. We will write to set out that position more fully, not least because several noble Lords were interested in it and picked up on it.
Consequently, as a matter of form, the commissioner’s staff will be Home Office civil servants. Crucially, however, Clause 6(2) provides that the commissioner must approve the appointment of all her staff. To address the point raised by my noble friend Lady Newlove, one of the contracts that she cannot sign is for office space. Obviously, she does not exist in law until the Bill is passed, but the Home Office is looking for suitable office space for her—not located in Marsham Street, where the Home Office is, to illustrate her independence. At the moment, like so many other people, she is working from home because of the pandemic.
In addition, we have made further provision in the framework document provided for under Clause 11. This sets out how the commissioner and the Home Secretary will work together, including on matters such as governance, funding and staffing of the commissioner’s office. The draft framework document makes it clear that, while the commissioner’s staff will be provided by the Home Office, the commissioner will have day-to-day direction and control of staff in support of her work. Moreover, as I said, appointments can be made only after consultation with, and with the approval of, the commissioner. In fact, the commissioner or her chief of staff will conduct recruitment campaigns and the commissioner will be responsible for deciding whom to appoint. I hope that these reassurances are sufficient for the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have weighed in on this subject. Committee stage is the opportunity for us to make our views known, even if we do not really think that something should be in the statute. I am not the first, and I shall not be the last, to have used that opportunity.
I hope I have not given the impression that we are anything other than extremely impressed by the job that Nicole Jacobs has done and is doing. I mentioned her energy and determination, and could go on about her grasp of the subject and so on. I would be pleased if noble Lords took all that as read.
I hope it is not really inconsistent—is that what I heard the Minister say?—to call for independence but suggest that the job should be full-time or, to put it another way, not part-time. I do not think it is at all inconsistent. I cannot believe the Minister is suggesting that, in the other bit of time that might be available, the postholder would take up a position in any way in conflict with acting as domestic abuse commissioner. That would clearly not be appropriate.
Independence is in more than the title, of course, and the question from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was very good. The answer has rather confirmed much of what noble Lords have been saying. I looked at the titles of the other commissioners but, as I have said, it very much exercised the House at the time of the 2015 Act. I did not read independence, in the way we have been talking about it, into the draft framework document.
I liked the reference to giving you armour when dealing with the Home Secretary that the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, made. She is right to point to the—“loyalty” may suggest something I do not want to suggest, but the buy-in from the team. This is teamwork led by the commissioner.
I still feel that being seen to be independent is important, but most important of all is having the tools. Noble Lords have talked a good deal about the ability to hire one’s own staff. Coming out of this group of amendments, that may be the issue we will want to return to at the next stage, but at this moment I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 16.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 21. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate and anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear during the debate.
Amendment 21
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment specifies that the good practice that the Commissioner must encourage in providing protection and support to people affected by domestic abuse must include substance use and mental health support.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, as I have already, I declare my interest as chair of the Commission on Alcohol Harm. I am most grateful to all who worked with me on our report. The noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, was one of the commissioners, and I know he is logged in and may have questions later. He missed signing up to speak today.
These amendments are designed to ensure that the close link between substances, particularly alcohol, and domestic abuse is taken into account throughout the Bill. I have already referred to the close link between alcohol and domestic abuse. A World Health Organization report in 2006 drew attention to research that found that alcohol use increases both the occurrence and severity of domestic violence.
Alcohol Change UK has reported police data showing that domestic incident call-outs increase at times when alcohol consumption is elevated—for example, during contentious football matches or cultural events such as new year. Shockingly, within intimate relationships in which one partner has a problem with alcohol or other drugs, domestic abuse is more likely to occur than not. This was reported by Galvani more than a decade ago, yet still continues behind closed doors and not really recognised.
Although closely linked, the relationship between alcohol and domestic abuse is complex. We know that alcohol is not the root cause of abuse, and it is certainly never an excuse for abusive behaviour.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to have the opportunity to speak in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I declare an interest as a member of the Commission on Alcohol Harm, which she chaired so admirably, where I saw much of the evidence on the difficulties and consequences that arise from an abuse of alcohol.
The Minister is probably not surprised that I am speaking on this, as we have had many exchanges, over many years. I want to speak in general terms about the direction of policy. These amendments are about trying to give the commissioner the tools, support and all that she might need to explore all the different avenues with which she has to work to find solutions to the problems that she faces. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, it is not alcohol alone; it is one of several issues, but it is an important one.
Our feeling is that, when the Conservatives came to power—they have been in power for over a decade now—they started ambitiously, under David Cameron, in trying to address the problems arising from alcohol in the widest sense; here we are focusing particularly on abuse in the family. In many areas, regrettably, matters have deteriorated. There have been some improvements but, latterly, we have found more people being taken ill with alcohol and more people dying through obesity linked to alcohol, with Covid-19 and a range of other issues that have troubled us greatly.
I seek an assurance from the Minister that, notwithstanding all the campaigning that we have done and the many areas where we have failed to make progress, on this one the Government will take alcohol seriously as a factor closely linked to the problem. I say that having met the Minister last week to talk about perpetrators, when we were accompanied by the Minister who steered this through the Commons, who I did not feel was inclined to take alcohol as seriously as it ought to be. I am not saying this about the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. The view was, “Well, let’s not go down that avenue—most people drink responsibly, and we do not have problems with the overwhelming bulk of people drinking.” We are talking here of a problem that has deteriorated. There is more domestic abuse now and problems with alcohol in certain areas.
The devolved Administrations have done well and are ahead of us, but in England we have been slow to act. This opportunity, in the creation of the commissioner and the need to provide her with support, gives us a chance to get down into the detail. We have specialist advice, so she should get the best research and tools, so that the best possible outcomes flow forth, so that we see abuse reduce. It is inflicted mainly on women, but on men, children and older people too. I hope the Minister does not just gives us reassuring words but commits to giving the commissioner all the tools in this area, so that we start to see real change taking place.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Committee has every reason to be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the others who have tabled amendments in this group. We will all be grateful to the Government if they secure a positive response. It is not enough to thank the movers for the amendments, to acknowledge their importance and express concern, but not accept them. That would be an inadequate response. The symbiotic link between substance abuse, mental health issues and domestic abuse is so strong and all-pervading, as the noble Baroness has explained, that it needs to be specifically recognised in this legislation and met with positive statutory commitments to take every step that we can to ensure that the link is recognised and, as far as possible, addressed.
In May 2019, in a paper called the Dynamics of Domestic Abuse and Drug and Alcohol Dependency, published in the British Journal of Criminology, a group of distinguished academics drew together the literature on these issues in connection with the precursor of this Bill. They cited
“the findings of domestic homicide and serious case reviews … which reveal the pertinence of a ‘toxic trio’ of domestic abuse, mental health issues and drug and alcohol problems in cases where women or children are killed”,
and considered
“how substance use features in around half of intimate partners homicides in the United Kingdom”,
according to Home Office figures. They pointed out that the Government’s consultation paper
“Transforming the Response to Domestic Abuse followed suit, highlighting the ‘complex needs’ of those living with ‘drug and alcohol misuse, offending, mental illness and poverty’”.
The American Society of Addiction Medicine cites studies showing that victims and abusers are 11 times more likely to be involved in domestic violence incidents on days of heavy substance abuse, and that domestic abuse against women who are with men who drink alcohol is up to four times more likely than in relationships with men who do not drink or take drugs. World Health Organization figures suggest that 50% of men accused of killing their spouses were drunk at the time.
Research led by Professor Seena Fazel, professor of forensic psychiatry at Oxford University, and published by the Public Library of Science, tracked 140,000 men who had been clinically diagnosed with a drink or drug problem and analysed how many had been later arrested for domestic abuse offences. For those dependent on alcohol, the figure was six times higher than the average; for those with a drug problem, the figure was seven times the average. The study also found an increased risk of partner violence among men with mental illnesses and behavioural disorders, and an interrelationship between mental disorders—particularly ADHD, personality disorders and clinical depression—and the use of drugs as coping strategies, as well as with the perpetration of domestic violence, hence the description of the “toxic trio”.
No one is suggesting that substance abuse is or ever can be an excuse for domestic abuse. However, the relationship between the two is undeniable. It does, of course, work both ways, on victims as well as abusers. The British Association of Social Workers, in its extremely well-presented guide for social workers, Substance Use and Domestic Abuse, cites research demonstrating that victims of physical or sexual domestic abuse have an increased likelihood of alcohol or drug abuse, but it also points out that the substance abuse may predate the abusive relationship. It says this about the position of victims:
“For some victims of abuse, during times of turmoil, substances may be the only constant in their lives that they can depend on. Perpetrators may also use substances to control their victims, in such ways as limiting victim’s access to substances, demanding sex for substances, or using substances as an apology after an abusive episode. Among victims of abuse, the relationship with their partner may be intertwined with their relationship with substances, making separation more complex.”
Most of this work is relatively recent. Society as a whole is hidebound by outdated attitudes and prejudices around domestic abuse, and these are only now being dissipated. They extend to the judiciary—a matter currently under consideration by the Court of Appeal in a case that started last week—and these questions came under close consideration by the Ministry of Justice in its paper last June Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases. The Bill represents a major step along that journey. I urge the Government to accept all these amendments to bring a sharp focus on what are undoubtedly complex and difficult inter-relationships, but ones which lie at the heart of tackling domestic abuse.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am glad to have put my name to these amendments and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for outlining the complex and troubling relationship between alcohol and domestic abuse. I also fully endorse my noble friend Lord Brooke’s wise remarks. He has been a tireless campaigner on this for more than 20 years in your Lordships’ House. I am sure that he, like the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is looking for a strong response from the Government, as I am.
The deep cuts made to addiction services since 2013-14 mean that the estimated 8.4 million high-risk drinkers and the hundreds of additional people with an opiate addiction needing help could miss out on life-saving treatment. No wonder the Royal College of Psychiatrists is calling for the Government to reverse the cuts and enable local authorities to invest £374 million into adult services so that they can cope with the increased need for treatment.
Professor Julia Sinclair, chair of the Addictions Faculty of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, has pointed to Covid-19 showing
“just how stretched, under-resourced and ill-equipped addiction services are to treat the growing numbers of vulnerable people living with this complex illness.”
There are only five NHS in-patient units in the country and no resource anywhere in her region to admit people who are alcohol dependent with coexisting mental illness.
Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance UK, has warned of the hidden alcohol harm crisis in this country. Before the pandemic, only one in five harmful and dependent drinkers got the help they needed; that proportion will now be significantly lower.
Before we even consider the link between alcohol and domestic abuse, we see that the services to help people suffering from substance and alcohol abuse have been severely limited and stretched. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, gave very graphic details indeed of a direct link between domestic abuse and substance abuse. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, survivors of domestic abuse can use alcohol or drugs themselves. Research has shown that women who have experienced extensive physical and sexual violence are more likely to use alcohol or drugs harmfully, compared to women who have not experienced extensive abuse.
Despite the close relationship between domestic abuse and substance use, very few survivors access specialist support. This is due, in part, to the lack of services that respond to the multiple needs of people experiencing both domestic abuse and substance use. Research has shown that the lack of integrated or co-ordinated services can see survivors prioritising one need over another—in other words, domestic abuse or substance abuse. Yet even accessing either one service can prove very difficult. People can find themselves turned away from refuges when accessing domestic abuse support due to their substance use. Research in London found that only about a quarter of the refuges reviewed always or often accept women who use alcohol or other drugs.
Likewise, survivors can struggle to find alcohol treatment services that meet their needs and adequately consider their trauma. Women who have experience of violent male partners may be reluctant to engage in mixed-gender services, but women-only provision for substance users is available in fewer than half of local authorities in England and Wales.
It is of course important and welcome that the Bill puts an obligation on local authorities to provide support to victims of domestic abuse. For the reasons that I and other noble Lords have just outlined, it is vital that this support includes substance use, addictions and mental health support where necessary. I too hope the Government will be able to come back with a strong response.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that we will have to leave our deliberations there for this evening. I beg to move that debate on this amendment be now adjourned.