House of Commons
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 9 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, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
I regularly discuss with my Cabinet colleagues opportunities for Scotland arising from the signing of trade deals. This Government have already struck deals with more than 65 countries around the world worth £217 billion a year, including with Canada, Japan and Singapore, with many more to come. This will create new markets for Scotland’s exporters, including for our world-leading food and drink sector.
Tim Loughton
I congratulate the Government on the recent agreement with the US Administration on suspending tariffs on a number of key quality UK goods, in particular Scotch. May I ask the Secretary of State how much that will be worth to the Scottish economy, and will he confirm that this benefit for Scotland would not have happened if the UK were still in the EU or a customs union, as the SNP has advocated, rather than having become an independent trading nation?
Mr Jack
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is brilliant news for the Scotch whisky industry, in the same week that the Chancellor announced a freeze on alcohol duty. The UK Government have fought incredibly hard on this issue, petitioning the highest levels of the US Administration to remove these tariffs, which were harming our Scottish exports.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
During the comprehensive economic and trade agreement talks between the EU and Canada, little Wallonia, as part of Belgium, managed to block the agreement until the concerns of its Parliament were resolved. Meanwhile, the Canadian state legislatures were in the next room to the Canadian federal delegation during those negotiations, putting their case. Will Scotland, with the most powerful Parliament in the world, as we are always told by the Secretary of State, have similar powers? If not, what will be the role of the Scottish Government in these trade talks?
Mr Jack
It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman could not bring himself to welcome the suspension of the US tariffs, in the same way that the Scottish National party has not welcomed any of our trade deals, but maybe he and his colleagues have other things on their mind at the moment. I also noticed that he did not raise separation, for the first time in my almost two years at the Dispatch Box—always separation, but not today. I think he has finally thrown that broken record away. We consult the Scottish Government on these trade deals, but they are a reserved matter and they are for the whole United Kingdom. As I stressed in my earlier answer, they will be very beneficial for the Scottish agrifoods industry.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and, particularly, the Secretary of State for International Trade on their relentless efforts to remove the unjustified and penal US tariffs on whisky and cashmere, which have been so damaging. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever now happens in relation to the Airbus-Boeing dispute, there can be no return to arbitrary retaliatory tariffs on unrelated industries, and that the decoupling of whisky and other products from that dispute must be permanent?
Mr Jack
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. The UK Government will continue to engage with the US to agree a fair settlement to the dispute and permanently remove these punitive tariffs, and that will be a deal that works for the whole United Kingdom. This agreement just shows that the UK and the US are determined to work together, and I look forward to seeing us strengthen that partnership.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) [V]
The Secretary of State knows how welcome the suspension of tariffs has been in Moray, with its many malt whisky distilleries and, of course, Johnstons of Elgin, which produces outstanding cashmere products. Will he outline what the Scotland Office and, indeed, the whole UK Government will do to ensure that this four-month suspension becomes a permanent removal of those damaging tariffs?
Mr Jack
I know that my hon. Friend has more distilleries in his constituency than any other Member of Parliament—47, I think—and I also know that he has been a great champion for the industry and has pressed very hard for the removal of the 25% tariff. We are very pleased to have negotiated an agreement that suspends the tariffs. We now have a space of four months to find a resolution on what has been a 16-year-long dispute. The Secretary of State for International Trade is ready to engage with the US trade representative, Katherine Tai, to agree something that is fair and balanced just as soon as the Senate confirms her appointment.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) [V]
As a proud Scot and one of the Prime Minister’s trade envoys, I was delighted by last week’s announcement that the Secretary of State and the Department for International Trade have secured a deal to remove export tariffs on Scotch whisky and a whole number of other products for sale to the United States. What estimate does my right hon. Friend make of the trade and investment benefits resulting from Scotland’s continued membership of the Union?
Mr Jack
This deal will be welcomed by businesses on both sides of the Atlantic because it will hopefully bring an end to harmful tit-for-tat tariffs. I agree with my hon. Friend, but to add to the point, the rest of the United Kingdom continues to be Scotland’s largest market for exports. It accounts for more than 60% of all Scotland’s trade.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Duguid)
The Secretary of State has regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the opportunities COP26 offers Scotland, including through the COP26 Devolved Administrations Ministerial Group. The group brings together the COP President, territorial Secretaries of State and Ministers from the devolved Administrations to support the delivery of an inclusive and welcoming COP26 summit in Glasgow.
Sarah Atherton [V]
Over the past year, many of our national celebrations have been curtailed due to covid. Companies that have accrued decades of specialist event management skills have been severely compromised and risk collapse. However, COP26, with its opening and closing ceremonies, offers the opportunity to showcase the splendour, heritage and culture of our four nations, our one Union. Does my hon. Friend agree that events companies and charities, such as the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo, have all that is required to show the world what a good Scottish hooley looks like?
David Duguid
I completely agree with that last point. Certainly, the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo, if you have not seen it yourself, Mr Speaker, is a sight to behold. We are working closely in partnership with the Scottish Government and a range of partners to assess the implications of covid-19 for COP26. We want to showcase the best of the UK at COP26 and have recently concluded a process for stakeholders to express their interest in being involved in UK Government-managed spaces to support our objective of making COP26 inclusive and representative of the whole United Kingdom.
Ben Everitt
Last week’s Budget showed how we will build back greener from this pandemic, delivering a green industrial revolution that benefits every single corner of every single nation in our awesome foursome of the United Kingdom, including millions to transform Scotland into a green energy hub. Does my hon. Friend agree that COP26 is the ideal opportunity for the Government of the UK and the Government of Scotland to work together to showcase our green credentials?
David Duguid
Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. COP26 will be the moment that we secure our path to global net zero emissions by 2050 and define the next decade of tackling climate change. We are working with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations to ensure an inclusive and ambitious summit for the whole of the UK. All parts of the UK will have important roles to play in ensuring the summit’s success: not just the devolved Administrations and the constituent nations, but my hon. Friend’s constituency; the town of Milton Keynes has the largest number of electric vehicle charging points, if I am not mistaken. So it is truly a UK-wide initiative.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
Dear me, Mr Speaker. Scotland is already a world leader in climate change policy, be it with renewables providing over 90% of supply, home energy efficiency, take-up of electric cars and an impressive charging network, or continuous investment in electric buses and rail electrification. In fact, the RAIL magazine editor said:
“Scotland’s admirable rolling programme of electrification rolls on…well done Scotland. DfT please note this is how it’s done.”
Does the Minister not therefore agree that Scottish representatives should be given a key place at COP26 to share our experience, or are they just too embarrassed by UK policies by comparison?
David Duguid
I agree that Scottish stakeholders, Scottish businesses and a lot of the renewable energies being developed in Scotland are world-leading. I could not possibly disagree with that, but it is important to recognise as well that all parts of the United Kingdom have an important role to play in ensuring the success of the summit. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is as delighted as I am that the summit is to be held in Glasgow, representing the whole of the UK around the world.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
Last week’s Budget provides continued UK-wide support and security to manage the ongoing impacts of covid-19. One in three jobs in Scotland have been supported by the UK Government’s unprecedented employment support package. Scottish businesses have benefited from more than £3.5 billion of loans and support, driven by UK Government schemes. We have also provided a much-needed boost by extending the reduction of VAT for our tourism and hospitality sectors.
Alun Cairns [V]
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the benefits of the Union of four nations have really come to the fore over the last 12 months, in that the strength of the UK Government’s balance sheet has meant not only that families, businesses and individuals in all parts of the UK have been able to benefit from that strength, but that the devolved Administrations have received the resources that they need to support people in all parts of the country?
Mr Jack
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct and, more importantly, the majority of people in Scotland agree with him. Not only did they emphatically reject independence in 2014, but the most recent opinion polls show that they have realised that neither the Scottish National party nor its leader can be trusted, and that independence would make everyone in Scotland significantly worse off.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the shadow Secretary of State for the first of two questions.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I am sure that the Secretary of State would like to join me—I am sure he accidentally omitted it—in congratulating Anas Sarwar on becoming leader of the Scottish Labour party, the very first ethnic minority leader of any UK political party. I am sure that his positivity and optimism will transform Scotland when compared with what we have at the moment.
Business covid support in Scotland has been sporadic at best, and I hope that the Government will tell us how we will get a full transparent audit from the Scottish Government, following the Audit Scotland report last week that estimated that £2.7 billion was unspent, not including the £1.2 billion from last week’s Budget. Every penny needs to be spent now.
This Government talk a lot, as we have heard already, about a post-covid levelling-up green agenda, yet they are pursuing a policy in offshore renewables that benefits its business solely in the south-east of England. The Government’s fourth contracts for difference auction at the end of this year actively disadvantages viable Scottish offshore renewable projects, as the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy includes out-of-date and expensive transmission charges in auction bids. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the Government ditch this unfair renewables policy that advantages south-east England at the expense and detriment of perfectly viable offshore renewables projects off our Scottish coasts?
Mr Jack
May I begin by agreeing with the hon. Gentleman in welcoming Anas Sarwar as leader of the Scottish Labour party? I also completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need more transparency on the spending of the £9.6 billion of covid support and business support that the Scottish Government have received. On the transmission issue, as he will know, by law, transmission charging is a matter for Ofgem, which is an independent regulator. However, Ofgem is currently considering some aspects of the transmission charging arrangements through its access and forward-looking charges review, and I encourage all Scottish generators to engage with that review at the earliest opportunity.
Ian Murray
I accept the Secretary of State’s answer, but it will disadvantage projects. BEIS has said that it will not change the auction requirements and, therefore, unless the wind blows in the south-east estuary of England, renewables, including in Scotland, will be significantly disadvantaged.
Given the mess that the Scottish Government are making of business and industry in Scotland, from steel to airports, to ferries, to aluminium smelters, I hope that the UK Government deliver on their promise to protect the Scottish financial services sector post-covid and post-Brexit. Financial services have done very well from Brexit, as long as they are in Amsterdam or Frankfurt. In Scotland, the sector employs 162,000 people and is nearly 10% of the Scottish economy, but despite its importance, it was not included in the Brexit deal at all. Will the Secretary of State guarantee today that the sector will get a much needed post-covid boost by ensuring that the memorandum of understanding on financial services, which is due to be signed in a matter of days with the EU, gives this critical industry the equivalence and access to EU markets that it was promised by this Government?
Mr Jack
The UK and the EU have agreed in a joint declaration to establish structured regulatory co-operation for the financial services industry. A memorandum of undertaking will be agreed in discussions between us and the EU to establish a framework. Those discussions are currently ongoing at official level, but as with the Brexit negotiations, we cannot give a running commentary.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on transport connectivity in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom. I welcome Sir Peter’s interim report and I look forward to his final report in the summer.
Rob Roberts
As connectivity and transport infrastructure are of vital importance not only for business but for the UK’s tourism industry, does my right hon. Friend agree that taking steps such as electrifying the north Wales coast line and improving links with north-west England will not only enable my constituents in Delyn to enjoy the delights of Scotland more easily but allow our Scottish cousins to have greater access to the beauties and wonders of our fantastic north Wales area?
John Lamont
The Minister will know that cross-border transport routes are vital for my constituents, for educational and career opportunities as well as many other day-to-day tasks. That is why I want to see the Borders Railway extended and to see improvements to the A1; these are both vital routes for the Scottish borders. Does he share my frustration and shock that the SNP Scottish Government are failing to engage with and support the connectivity review, which could be an opportunity to accelerate these two projects?
Mr Jack
I share my hon. Friend’s frustration, I really do. This review is part of our levelling-up agenda to improve the national infrastructure and create jobs and prosperity, and I think it is pathetic of the Scottish nationalist Government not to have engaged just because it is a “Union” connectivity review.
Dr Hudson [V]
As an MP for a borderlands region, I know that strengthening and enhancing our Union is of huge importance to my constituency of Penrith and The Border. Does my right hon. Friend agree that projects such as extending the Borders Railway down to Carlisle are a clear example of how the UK and Scottish Governments can work together to improve transport links in the region? Does he also agree that this would be a great boost to the economies of both the north of England and the south of Scotland, and provide a gateway to unlocking the potential of both regions?
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
The Budget confirmed an additional £1.2 billion for the Scottish Government in the next financial year. Taken together with the allocation at the last spending review, it means the Scottish Government will receive an additional £3.6 billion of funding in 2021-22 through the Barnett formula, on top of the baseline of £35 billion.
Kenny MacAskill [V]
The A1, the east coast main line and the national grid all run through East Lothian, but as this virtual call shows, broadband is as vital as older forms of infrastructure. East Lothian has lower than average download speeds and less gigabyte capacity than many parts of the worst 10% of areas in the UK. Is this a Brexit bonus or the price of the Union? What is the Minister doing to ensure that adequate spending is there to provide the connectivity that East Lothian and Scotland require?
Iain Stewart
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has mentioned in his answers to previous questions, we have just published the interim report on the Union connectivity review, which emphasises the need for better connectivity across all transport modes between Scotland, England and the rest of the United Kingdom. On the question of broadband speeds, of course the recent pandemic has underlined the importance of having good digital connectivity, and this Government are investing substantially in improving broadband speeds right across the United Kingdom.
Kirsten Oswald
Scotland is delivering a pay rise for public sector workers while the UK Government are instituting a real-terms pay cut for their public sector staff. Does the Minister not appreciate that, as well as being unjust and a real failure to recognise the hard work of the public sector, this decision also harms the Scottish Government’s ability to pay our Scottish public sector staff adequately?
Iain Stewart
I should point out that I am not responsible for public sector pay, either in Scotland or England, but I will relay the hon. Lady’s points to my colleagues who decide these matters. We will want to be as generous as we can be, while also keeping one eye on the overall state of the public finances. We have to keep that under control. As the Chancellor announced last week, if the international financial markets take fright at the state of our public finances, we will end up in a far worse financial position than we are currently in. Of course, if the Scottish Government wish to increase public sector pay more than in England, they have the fiscal powers at their disposal to do so.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) [V]
The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 grants UK Ministers the ability to provide financial assistance, particularly from the shared prosperity fund, to any person for purposes that are outlined in the Act. However, there is still no detail as to how this will work in practice or what conditions will have to be met to qualify for such funding. Last month, a Scotland Office Minister told the Scottish Affairs Committee that further details on this matter would be provided in the now published Budget, so could the Minister outline those details for us, please?
Iain Stewart
I point the hon. Lady to the prospectuses for the first stages of the community renewal fund and the levelling-up fund, which were published alongside the Budget last week. This is about real devolution. This is about empowering local communities, local authorities and other stakeholders to come forward with the schemes that they think are best for their local areas, to help bounce back after the coronavirus pandemic and put in place the innovation and investment that will help economies grow and secure the jobs of the future.
Mhairi Black
That Scotland Office Minister also told the Scottish Affairs Committee that there will be an opportunity to engage with stakeholders on a lot of the concerns that still exist, so could the Minister tell us what those opportunities are? When will they be made available to us?
Iain Stewart
The work we are doing will build on the very strong relationships that already exist, such as through the city region and growth deal programmes. Shortly after this session, I will be speaking to the Glasgow area policy conference on these matters. When I spoke to them a few weeks ago, the SNP leader of Glasgow City Council told me that they have developed a very effective network with the local authorities in the Greater Glasgow area, with universities and with the private sector and are putting forward exciting bids for their future growth. It is those community-led, area-led projects that we want to encourage through our different funding streams.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Last week, we finally saw the Chancellor move the cliff edge for the most vulnerable by announcing that the £20 a week cut to universal credit for millions of families will be moved by just six months. Citizens Advice Scotland has shared that removing the increase will result in nearly 60% of CAB complex debt clients being unable to meet their living costs. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the least well-off in Scotland are not impacted by the Chancellor’s constant dither and delay on ensuring that universal credit is high enough to support all people across Scotland and the United Kingdom?
Iain Stewart
Before I answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, may I, through him, extend my congratulations to Anas Sarwar on his election as leader of the Scottish Labour party? It is a significant moment, and he will be a doughty fighter in the upcoming Holyrood elections.
On universal credit and our route map, although all the indications are that the economy will be back up and running by the end of June, we have taken the prudent step of extending not just universal credit but furlough and some of the other support schemes to the end of September, just in case there is a delay in getting things up and running. The uplift to universal credit was always designed to be temporary, to help families through the pandemic, and the system has worked well. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the civil servants who have administered universal credit at a time of unprecedented demand in a very effective way.
The long-term arrangements for social security payments will be determined at the forthcoming spending review in the normal way. Of course, the Scottish Government also have the opportunity to supplement those payments with their own welfare powers.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
While the UK Government are extending rates relief for only three months in England, the Scottish Government are doing so for the whole year, helping the retail, hospitality, leisure and aviation sectors. The Scottish Government want to go further still, so will the Minister support Scottish businesses by calling for the full devolution of financial powers to Scotland?
Iain Stewart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is not correct to say that the business rates holiday is only being extended for three months; a period beyond that is specially targeted at businesses in the tourism, hospitality and entertainment sector. In addition, for England substantial restart grants are available, the money for which is Barnettised to the Scottish Government, who are able to spend that as they see fit.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
The whole House can be proud of the UK’s vaccination programme, with more than 22.5 million people now having received their first dose across the UK. We can also be proud of the support the UK has given to the international covid response, including the £548 million we have donated to COVAX. I therefore wish to correct the suggestion from the European Council President that the UK has blocked vaccine exports. Let me be clear: we have not blocked the export of a single covid-19 vaccine or vaccine components. This pandemic has put us all on the same side in the battle for global health. We oppose vaccine nationalism in all its forms. I trust that Members in all parts of the House will join me in rejecting this suggestion and in calling on all our partners to work together to tackle this pandemic.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Daisy Cooper [V]
The Government are throwing a staggering £37 billion at a test and trace system that we know has made barely any difference, yet they say they cannot afford to give more than a pitiful 1% pay rise to NHS workers. The Prime Minister has said that he owes his life to them. He stood on the steps of No. 10 and applauded them. So will the Prime Minister do more than pay lip service? Will he pay them the wage that they deserve?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is indeed right that we owe a huge amount to our nurses—an incalculable debt—which is why I am proud that we have delivered a 12.8% increase in the starting salary of nurses and are asking the pay review body to look at increasing their pay, exceptionally of all the professions in the public sector. As for test and trace, it is thanks to NHS Test and Trace that we are able to send kids back to school and to begin cautiously and irreversibly to reopen our economy and restart our lives.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for what he is doing to campaign for his local area on flood defences. I thank the Environment Agency for the tireless, imaginative and creative work it does to find solutions, and we are investing £5.2 billion to build 2,000 new flood defences over the next six years.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Who does the Prime Minister think deserves a pay rise more: an NHS nurse or Dominic Cummings?
The Prime Minister
As I told the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) earlier on, we owe a massive debt as a society, and I do personally, to the nurses of our NHS. That is why we have asked the public sector pay review body, exceptionally, to look at their pay. I want to stress, however, that, as the House knows, starting salaries for nurses have gone up by 12.8% over the last three years, and it is thanks to the package that this Government have put in place that we now have 10,600 more nurses in our NHS than there were one year ago and 60,000 more in training.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister says nurses’ pay has gone up; I know he is desperate to distance himself from the Conservatives’ record over the last decade, but as he well knows, since 2010 nurses’ pay has fallen in real terms by more than £800. And he did not answer my question—it was a very simple question. The Prime Minister has been talking about affordability; he could afford to give Dominic Cummings a 40% pay rise. He could afford that; now, he is asking NHS nurses to take a real-terms pay cut. How on earth does he justify that?
The Prime Minister
I repeat the point that I have made: I believe that we all owe a massive debt to our nurses and, indeed, all our healthcare workers and social care workers. One of the things that they tell me when I go to hospitals, as I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman does too, is that in addition to pay one of their top concerns is to have more colleagues on the wards to help them with the undoubted stress and strains of the pandemic. That is why we have provided another £5,000 in bursaries for nurses and another £3,000 to help with the particular costs of training and with childcare. It is because of that package that this year we are seeing another 34% increase in applications for nurses. This Government of this party of the NHS are on target to deliver 50,000 more nurses in our NHS.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister talks about recruitment; there are currently 40,000 nursing vacancies and 7,000 doctors’ vacancies. How on earth does he think a pay cut is going to help to solve that? Frankly, I would take the Prime Minister a bit more seriously if he had not spent £2.6 million of taxpayers’ money on a Downing Street TV studio, or £200,000 on new wallpaper for his flat. They say that charity starts at home, but I think the Prime Minister is taking it a bit too literally.
Let me try something very simple: does the Prime Minister accept that NHS staff will be hundreds of pounds worse off a year because of last week’s Budget?
The Prime Minister
No. Of course, we will look at what the independent pay review body has to say, exceptionally, about the nursing profession, whom we particularly value, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman should also know, and reflect to the House, that under this Government we not only began with a record increase in NHS funding of £33.9 billion, but because of the pandemic we have put another £63 billion into supporting our NHS, on top of the £140 billion of in-year spending. It is because of this Government that in one year alone there are another 49,000 people working in our NHS. That is something that is of massive benefit not just to patients but to hard-pressed nurses as well.
Keir Starmer
My mum was a nurse; my sister was a nurse; my wife works in the NHS—I know what it means to work for the NHS. When I clapped for carers, I meant it; the Prime Minister clapped for carers, then he shut the door in their face at the first opportunity.
The more you look at the Prime Minister’s decision, the worse it gets, because it is not just a pay cut; it is a broken promise, too. Time and time again he said that the NHS would not pay the price for this pandemic. Two years ago, he made a promise to the NHS in black and white: his document commits to a minimum pay rise of 2.1%. It has been budgeted for, and now it is being taken away. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister shakes his head. His MPs voted for it, so why, after everything the NHS has done for us, is he now breaking promise after promise?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman voted against the document in question, which just crowns the absurdity of his point. Under this Government we have massively increased funding for our amazing NHS, with the result that, as I say, there are 6,500 more doctors this year than there were last year, 18,000 more healthcare workers and 10,600 more nurses. We are going to deliver our promises—I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that—and we are going to go on and build 40 more hospitals and recruit 50,000 more nurses, and we are going to get on and deliver on our pledges to the British people. We are going to do that because of our sound management of the economy and the fastest vaccine roll-out programme of any comparable country which, frankly, if we had followed his precept and his ideas, we would certainly not have been able to achieve.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister says that he voted for it; he did. Now he has ripped it up—2.1% ripped up. If he will not listen to me, he should listen to what his own Conservative MPs are saying about this. This is from his own side. This is what they say—behind you, Prime Minister. “It’s inept.” “It’s unacceptable.” “It’s pathetic.” These are Conservative MPs talking about the Prime Minister’s pay cut for nurses, and that was before his answers today. Perhaps the most telling of all the comments came from another MP, sitting behind him, who said:
“The public just hear ‘1 per cent’ and think how mean we are.”
Even his own MPs know that he has got this wrong. Why is he going ahead with it?
The Prime Minister
What the public know is that we have increased starting pay for nurses by 12.8% over the past three years. They know that, in the past year, this Government have put another £5,000 bursary into the pockets of nurses, because we support them, as well as the £3,000 extra for training. It is very important that the public sector pay review body should come back with its proposals, and we will, of course, study them. As I say, it is thanks to the investment made by this Government that there are 49,000 more people in the NHS this year than last year. That means that there are 10,600 more nurses helping to relieve the burden on our hard-pressed nurses. That is what this Government are investing in.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister says, “We support them. We’ll reward them.” He is cutting their pay. [Interruption.] “Not true”, he says. Prime Minister, a 1% rise versus a 1.7% inflation rise is a real-terms cut. If he does not understand that, we really are in trouble.
Mr Speaker, the Government promised honesty, but the truth is that they can afford to give Dominic Cummings a 40% pay rise, and they cannot afford to reward the NHS properly. The mask really is slipping, and we can see what the Conservative party now stands for: cutting pay for nurses; putting taxes up on families. He has had the opportunity to change course, but he has refused to do so. If he so determined to cut NHS pay, will he at least show some courage and put it to a vote in this Parliament?
The Prime Minister
The last time that we put this to a vote, the right hon. and learned Gentleman voted against it, as I said before. We are increasing pay for nurses. We are massively increasing our investment in the NHS. We are steering a steady course, whereas he weaves and wobbles from one week to the next. One week he is attacking us and saying that we should be doing more testing, and the next week he is denouncing us for spending money on testing. One week he calls for a faster roll-out of PPE, and the next week he is saying that we spent too much. He has to make up his mind. One week, he calls for a faster vaccination roll-out when he actually voted—although he claims to have forgotten it—to stay in the European Medicines Agency. Perhaps he would like to confirm that he voted to stay in the European Medicines Agency, which would have made that vaccine roll-out impossible. We vaccinate and get on with delivering for the people of this country. We vaccinate, he vacillates, and that is the difference.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I will look very carefully at my diary to see whether I can actually get up to Blackpool. I have many happy memories of joyful evenings spectating at the illuminations of Blackpool. I know that Blackpool will play an important part in the tourism recovery that we hope to see this summer if we continue on our road map.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister published his plans for an Erasmus replacement, without any consultation or discussion with the devolved Governments. The replacement scheme offers lower living support, no travel support and no tuition fee support. Why are this Tory Government taking opportunities away from our young people?
The Prime Minister
That was a delightfully concise question, but the hon. Member is wrong about the difference between Erasmus and the Turing project. Unlike the Erasmus scheme, which overwhelmingly went to kids from better-off homes, the Turing project is designed to help kids across the country, of all income groups, get to fantastic universities around the world.
Kirsten Oswald
That is just not the case. We know that we cannot trust a word that the Prime Minister says on this. He told us that there was no threat to the Erasmus scheme, but he clearly will not match EU levels of support. And it is not just us saying it; his own Scottish colleague, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), told the BBC last week that young people will not benefit from Brexit. The Government have saddled a generation with tuition fee debt, and are now closing the door on Erasmus. It is no wonder that students are choosing the SNP and independence for a prosperous future. Prime Minister, will you think again, do the right thing, engage with our EU friends and rejoin Erasmus?
The Prime Minister
I think students should choose the Turing project because it is fantastic and reaches out across the whole country. I believe, by the way, that they should reject the SNP—a Scottish nationalist party, Mr Speaker—because it is failing the people of Scotland, failing to deliver on education, failing on crime and failing on the economy. I hope very much that the people of Scotland will go for common sense. Instead of endlessly going on about constitutional issues and endlessly campaigning for a referendum, which is the last thing the people of this country need right now, I think people want a Government who focus on the issues that matter to them, including a fantastic international education scheme like Turing.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend has been a great champion of the arts and culture sectors, and he is completely right about the role that they can play for young people in the recovery. That is why we hope that the massive £2 billion recovery fund that we have given to thousands of theatres, orchestras, choirs, music venues and others will be used for the benefit and the cultural enrichment of young people up and down the country.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Prime Minister’s fantasy bridge to Northern Ireland could cost £33 billion—this, while our road and rail networks have been absolutely decimated from decades of underinvestment. The Conservative party got a grand total of 2,399 votes at the last Assembly election. What mandate does he think he has to override the democratically elected people of Northern Ireland to impose a bridge that goes through miles of unexploded munitions and radioactive waste?
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Member had read the article I wrote this morning in The Daily Telegraph, he would have seen that the things that we have set out in the Hendy review will be of massive benefit to Northern Ireland. That includes upgrading the A75, which is the single biggest thing that people in Northern Ireland wanted, by the way, and which the Scottish nationalists—the Scottish National party—have totally failed to do. The review also includes better connections east-west within Northern Ireland, which we should be doing, and better connections north-south within the island of Ireland. It is a fantastic Union connectivity review. The hon. Member should appreciate it; it is the way forward. I am amazed, frankly, by his negativity.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
The Prime Minister
That is absolutely true. It is Conservative Governments who invest in Eastleigh; it is Conservative Governments putting £640 billion into an infrastructure revolution. I congratulate Jerry Hall on what he is doing to resurface the road and to make it quieter, and I hope that he will be duly elected in May.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
Throughout the pandemic we have done whatever we can to look after people throughout the country, whether those on benefits or those who have lost their jobs, sadly, because of the pandemic. I am very proud of what universal credit has been able to achieve, and I think that the hon. Gentleman should perhaps take it up with his friends in the Labour party who actually want to abolish universal credit.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
The fantastic thing about the lifetime skills guarantee is that in very, very tough circumstances, with many people having, I am afraid inevitably, to seek new jobs and to find ways of retraining, as will happen in a changing economy, it offers everybody—adults over 23—the opportunity of £3,000 for an A-level-equivalent qualification. I think it will be absolutely instrumental in helping young people of beyond school age to retrain and get the jobs they need. The lifetime skills guarantee: it is the first time it has been done.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
The Prime Minister
Actually I think that the hon. Lady is making an important point about the discrepancy in the tax paid by some online businesses and some concrete businesses. That is an issue that the Chancellor is trying to address in an equitable way, working with colleagues in the G7 and around the world.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to take up my hon. Friend’s suggestion. I am not the greatest chef myself, but I have made, and can make, from memory, a fish pie with haddock and prawns, which I undertake to do.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
People like my constituent, Tessa Stevens, have had to keep their salons shut despite shrinking Government support, unchanged overheads and decreased profits. I am urgently seeking the Prime Minister’s support to protect the immediate and long-term recovery of beauty businesses and the jobs they support. Will the Prime Minister explain why his Government refuse to listen to the beauty industry, which is calling for VAT to be temporarily reduced to 5% for hair and beauty businesses, similar to what has happened to businesses in other sectors such as hospitality, tourism and culture?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is absolutely right in what she says about the importance of beauty businesses. They do an amazing job, and we want them to bounce back very strongly from the pandemic. I want high-street beauty salons to be opening up in the way that they were in the past, rather than people going round and giving services and cutting hair at home. It is very important that we revive high-street salons, and that is why we are continuing with the cautious, but irreversible road map out of this, which will enable a full recovery for the entire sector. In the meantime, as she knows, the Chancellor has extended furlough and all the other provisions that are necessary.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend knows whereof he speaks. He is probably one of the greatest experts on railways in this House, and we are certainly determined to follow his lead and to upgrade services in the west country and in Dorset. He knows what is happening at Dawlish and elsewhere. Network Rail has identified proposals, including the improvement of the performance of the west of England line, which is currently being assessed. He is knocking at an open door.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) [V]
Back in 2012, commissioning for alcohol and drug addiction treatment was taken out of the NHS and handed to local authorities, and those services are now overwhelmed after a decade of cuts and fragmentation. Last year, the UK recorded the highest number of alcohol-specific deaths since records began. Addiction is an illness that can be treated, so will the Prime Minister urgently investigate the rise in deaths and bring addiction treatment back into the NHS within mental health services and give it the funding it requires?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to draw attention to the importance of addiction treatment and its relationship to mental health, and that is why the Government are investing record sums in mental health—£13.3 billion—and treatment for alcoholism is of course part of that.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
Yes, I am certainly very happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend, or to make sure she gets access to the relevant ministerial authority. What we are doing, in addition to the £13.3 billion I spoke of, is supporting mental health charities throughout the pandemic, and in particular focusing on the mental health needs of children and young people. That is why I appointed Dr Alex George to be our youth mental health ambassador.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
This Government are failing young people. Before the pandemic, apprenticeship starts were down by 28% for under-19s and £330 million of unspent levy went back to the Treasury, falling short by 81% in creating the promised 100,000 new apprenticeships. This month, I will be holding my fifth apprenticeships and jobs fair in Bristol South. Will the Prime Minister join me in urging all young people to support that fair, and will he apologise to them for failing them so far?
The Prime Minister
I think that jobs fairs are an important thing, and I know that colleagues across the House do them, but I also think that the Government can be proud of our record in getting record numbers of young people into employment. We now face a very severe problem caused by the pandemic, which we are addressing not just with the lifetime skills guarantee that I mentioned earlier with but the kickstart funds and the restart funds, with £2 billion going into kickstart alone, to help young people into the jobs that they need.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. I am told that the boulevard of light on Lord Street rivals the Champs-Élysées itself, and I will certainly keep my hon. Friend’s invitation in mind.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
In this House, we all know the importance of the people who have looked after our vulnerable loved ones over the past year when we have been unable to do so, so will the Prime Minister explain to me why in this country we have 375,000 care workers on zero-hours contracts?
The Prime Minister
I am proud of what the Government have done to increase the wages of care workers across the country, with record increases in the living wage. This country is unlike most other countries in the world in the speed with which we have vaccinated care home workers and their elderly charges.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to support my hon. Friend’s initiative, and I understand that Golborne, which he represents, was the sight of the world’s first railway junction.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]
Anthony Jones, a ferociously bright student at Stirling University, was looking to do a master’s degree in Amsterdam. Pre- Brexit, the course fees were £2,168. Post Brexit, the fees are £14,600. The Turing scheme will not touch the sides of what is necessary. Would the Prime Minister like to apologise to Anthony and countless hundreds of thousands of students like him for limiting their life horizons against their will?
The Prime Minister
No, because I think that the Turing scheme is fairer and will enable students on lower incomes to have access to great courses around the world. I believe it is a highly beneficial reform of the way we do this, and it is truly global in its ambitions.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes. I thank my hon. Friend; I know that he supported the bid for the reinstatement of the Stoke to Leek line. That is currently being assessed by the Department for Transport as one of the Beeching reversals, which are so popular around the country and so right, and he can expect an outcome in the summer.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
If the Prime Minister is serious about levelling up the country, does he honestly think that favouring the Chancellor’s Richmondshire constituency over Barnsley for financial support is the best way to do it?
The Prime Minister
We are devoted to levelling up across the entire country, and that goes for Barnsley as well as everywhere else.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to look at my right hon. Friend’s interesting suggestion for a kitemark scheme. In the meantime, this Government are leading the world in tackling deforestation, with a £3 billion investment being led across Whitehall.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Jonathan Ashworth
It is indeed, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has twice, from that Dispatch Box, said that the Labour Opposition voted against the NHS Funding Bill and the 2.1% increase for NHS staff. This is not the case. Indeed, in the debate, as Hansard will show, I was explicit that we would not divide the House. Can you, Mr Speaker, use your good offices to get the Prime Minister to return to the House to correct the record? And do you agree that if the Prime Minister wants to cut nurses’ pay, he should have the courage of his convictions and bring a vote back to the House?
Mr Speaker
May I just say that that is not a point of order? It is certainly a point of clarification, and that part has been achieved. But I am certainly not going to be drawn into a debate, as the shadow Secretary of State well knows.
I will now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Petition
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
We should celebrate and protect our country’s amazing heritage. People across the Tees Valley are incredibly proud of Captain James Cook, and 2,500 people have signed this decision.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland,
Declares that the achievements of Captain James Cook in the fields of science, exploration and cartography are of immense historic significance and are rightly commemorated by a number of much-loved statues and monuments across Middlesbrough, the Tees Valley and North Yorkshire.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that those monuments and sites which commemorate Captain James Cook are protected against harm or removal.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002651]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before the Adjournment debate, can I ask the Serjeant at Arms—we will not suspend—to sanitise the Government Dispatch Box to ensure that it is covid-friendly? [Interruption.] I know, if we had a potter’s wheel at this moment in time, we would be doing that, but we just want to make certain. Colonel Bob, if you could take your seat—[Interruption.] There you are, entertainment as well. Fantastic—I thank the Serjeant at Arms for doing that.
Northern Ireland Protocol
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Government’s unilateral action on the Northern Ireland protocol.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
The Government are committed to giving effect to the protocol in a pragmatic and proportionate way, one that is needed. We will continue to work with colleagues in Westminster, with the Northern Ireland Executive and with businesses to support our sensible approach.
As I announced last Wednesday in this House, the Government have taken several temporary operational steps to avoid disruptive cliff edges as engagement with the EU continues through the Joint Committee. These steps recognise that appropriate time must be provided for businesses to implement new requirements, and that action was needed in the immediate term to avoid any disruption to flows of critical goods, such as food supplies, into Northern Ireland. Since that statement, further guidance has been provided, including on parcel movements.
The protocol was agreed as a unique solution to the complex challenges that are before us. Its core aims include upholding the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions, north-south and east-west, and ensuring that the implementation of the protocol can be given effect in a way that minimises the impact on the everyday lives of communities in Northern Ireland, as the protocol itself pledges. The Government remain committed to meeting our obligations, and doing so in the pragmatic and proportionate way that was always intended.
Louise Haigh
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. In recent weeks, we have seen the threat of instability return to Northern Ireland. Without responsible leadership, the Brexit deal that the Prime Minister negotiated always had the potential to unsettle the delicate balance of identities across these islands. It was only on 24 February that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that we are committed to jointly finding solutions
“to make the Protocol work”.
Just seven days later, the Secretary of State unilaterally undermined that commitment, sending a clear message that the Government’s word cannot be trusted, which raises serious questions about whether the Government have a strategy at all to deal with the complex realities facing Northern Ireland.
Provocation is not a strategy, and a stop gap is not a solution, so what precisely is the Government’s intention? Is it to push the protocol to breaking point, and undermine the cast-iron commitment to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, or is it to find the solutions that businesses are crying out for? If it is the latter, can the Secretary of State give us something tangible? What kind of agreement is being sought, for instance, on common veterinary standards that would deliver the long-term solutions needed to prevent disruption? Does he think that the Irish Government saying that we are no longer a partner that can be trusted will make such solutions more likely or less? Does he think that the behaviour of Lord Frost will make desperately needed flexibility from the EU more likely or less? Does he think that that approach will make the chances of a successful relationship with President Biden more likely or less?
Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the actions taken last week breach international law for a second time? This is an extraordinary position for the Government to be in: having to break the law and trash Britain’s international reputation to remove checks that they claimed never existed. Is it not now time to show responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland, be honest about the consequences of the Brexit deal that the Prime Minister negotiated, and commit to working with the EU to find the long-term solutions that we desperately need?
Brandon Lewis
I note from the hon. Lady’s comments that, from memory, she did not at any point disagree with the substance of any of the measures that we have brought forward, which are critical to protecting the flow of goods in Northern Ireland, so I assume that she inherently supports what we have done. She will be in good company, because the actions that we took last week have been backed by a range of businesses and the communities in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Retail Consortium itself said:
“The retail industry welcomes the extension of the grace periods…even if it is unilaterally, to allow us to continue to give Northern Ireland households the choice and affordability they need.”
That sentiment has been echoed by many others, who have said that the action was needed in relation to the immediate grace period deadlines.
I have spent a lot of time over the last few months, and certainly in the last couple of weeks, for obvious reasons, talking to businesses that were very clear that, had we not taken that action last week, we would have seen disruption to food supplies in literally the next couple of weeks. Underlying the point that the hon. Lady made in her opening comments about stability is the fact that it was important for stability for people in Northern Ireland, and for the future of the protocol, for us not to be in a situation where, because of the way things were being implemented, we would have had empty shelves again, potentially in just a couple of weeks’ time. I am sad that she was almost arguing that that could be acceptable. It simply is not.
In terms of the hon. Lady’s questions on the action that we have taken, the measures that I announced last Wednesday are lawful. They are consistent with a progressive and good faith implementation of the protocol. They are temporary operational easements, introduced where additional delivery time is needed. They do not change our legal obligations set out in the protocol, and we will continue to discuss protocol implementation in the Joint Committee. Some of the issues that she has raised are those that we are working in through the Joint Committee.
We would have liked to be able to get this agreement with the EU. Sadly, that was not possible within the timeframe in which we had to make a decision to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland did not suffer loss of trade and loss of flow of products into Northern Ireland in the next couple of weeks. That is why we took some simple, operational and pragmatic decisions last week.
I have to say I am a bit disappointed, although I probably should not be surprised, to see a Labour Front Bencher standing here and defending the EU, rather than defending the actions of the UK Government, who are standing up for the people of the United Kingdom and, in this case, making sure that we do the right thing by the people of Northern Ireland. As a Unionist, I ask the hon. Lady whether she really feels she is in the right place on this.
Mr Speaker
We go now to the Chair of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, Simon Hoare.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I say to my right hon. Friend that it is not the what but the how? The Government did not reluctantly inherit the protocol; they authored it jointly with the EU, with all its modus operandi. Do the Government understand the very destabilising effect on trust that such unilateral action has in both UK-EU relations and in UK-Irish relations? May I urge the Government to desist the narrative of unilateral action and debate, to get back around the Joint Committee table and to make sure that the protocol works, that everybody understands that it is here to stay, and that it can benefit very significantly the people, the economy and the communities of Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
As I said, the protocol was agreed as a unique solution to complex and unique challenges, recognising the unique situation of Northern Ireland, but we wanted to work these things through in agreement with the EU. The reality is that the EU had not come to an agreement on these matters. As we see these decisions go through, I hope it will be seen that they are pragmatic, operational and temporary. Just a few weeks ago, we saw the Irish Government implement temporary flexibilities very similar to what we are talking about, without giving an end date and without anyone criticising or challenging them.
We want to continue to work with the EU. We recognise that of course the EU’s focus is on the single market. We have to make sure our focus is always clearly on our commitment to the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, which is not just north-south but east-west as well.
Mr Speaker
We go to the Scottish National party spokesperson, Richard Thomson.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I echo the words of the Select Committee Chair: it is not the publicly stated objective of protecting the flow of goods that is at issue here; rather, it is the provocative and belligerent manner in which the Government seem to be determined to go about trying to achieve that.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said previously that he believed Northern Ireland was getting
“the best of both worlds”
through the protocol, and that any issues arising from the new arrangements could be resolved within the terms of that protocol, without needing to trigger the article 16 procedure. At a time when flexibility is needed, this action will ensure that the good will towards the UK Government that is needed to secure changes to the arrangement they took so long to negotiate is in shorter supply than ever before. The conduct of the Brexit negotiations came at the expense of the UK’s reputation for political stability and good governance. Is not this latest development one which will come at the expense of any lingering trust there may be in the UK Government as a trustworthy international partner, who can be relied upon to keep their word?
Brandon Lewis
We are a trustworthy partner and have always been clear about what we would do and the reasoning for what we are doing. Rather like the Irish Government did a few weeks ago when they took sensible flexibilities, we have taken flexibilities. We have given a timeline for them; they are temporary, operational and the right thing to do for the people of Northern Ireland.
Returning to the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) about stability in Northern Ireland, it is undoubtedly the case—it can be seen in any engagement in Northern Ireland across the entire community—that the action the EU took when it talked about and actually started to implement article 16 on that Friday night had a huge impact on communities across Northern Ireland, and the issue still lingers. We need to recognise and understand people’s sense of identity in Northern Ireland, the impact on it and the tension created by that action.
Our actions were about making sure that we did not have a further problem, which could well have occurred in the next couple of weeks. According to the businesses we have been dealing with, if we had not taken action urgently last week, there would have been empty shelves in Northern Ireland. That is not what the protocol is about and it is not fair to the people of Northern Ireland.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
I share the Minister’s determination to protect the integrity of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement in terms of both north-south and east-west. The EU’s decision in January to invoke article 16 was in complete contradiction of the spirit of the protocol. Shamefully placing the EU’s protection of its single market over the protection of the Good Friday agreement seriously undermined cross-community confidence of its operation. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is now incumbent on the EU to remedy its mistake and restore trust in the protocol in Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a very important and powerful point. He is quite right that it is important we remember that the Good Friday/Belfast agreement is about the entire community: it has a north-south and an east-west dimension, and people need to understand that.
I was very pleased that the EU Vice-President agreed to meet with businesses and civic society. We hear, from across communities and across businesses, their concerns and fears about the actions that have been taken and the fixes they need to see in the protocol, some of which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley asked us to get on with and do quickly just a couple of weeks ago. That is what we have done, for the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland and to ensure that the protocol can work and function as it was always designed and intended to do.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
We welcome and support even the limited measures that the Government have taken to protect businesses in Northern Ireland, but even an extended grace period still leaves us with a reality that, in the words of the permanent secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, 20% of all the checks taking place on all borders across the European Union are now taking place in the Irish sea. That will increase substantially beyond the grace period, so we need a permanent solution to this problem—the sooner, the better.
Brandon Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I send my best wishes to his colleague, Minister Poots, who is now returning to work after his recent illness, which is really good news.
The right hon. Gentleman has highlighted the practical impact of some of these things, and the importance of our getting solutions to ensure a good, flexible flow of goods, as we have always outlined was our vision, going back to our Command Paper last year. That is why it is important that we continue the conversations, and I encourage the EU to go further with those with civic society and business organisations in Northern Ireland, which it promised to do. We are keen to see the EU engage further, which I hope it will do shortly to understand the needs and the flexibilities that are practical, both for Northern Ireland and, ultimately, the wider EU as well.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Could my right hon. Friend explain to the European Union that we are perhaps more committed to the Good Friday agreement and the avoidance of new infrastructure on the border between north and south than it has so far demonstrated itself to be, and that the idea that the Northern Ireland protocol is a work of such perfection that it is beyond improvement is a myth? Can he ask them also to explain why the sale of English sausages in Northern Ireland is somehow a threat to the integrity of the EU single market, or to the Good Friday agreement?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and I am determined, as the Prime Minister is, to ensure that the great British banger—the great Norfolk sausage—will continue to be enjoyed by those who wish to do so across the counties of Northern Ireland in perpetuity. However, it is important—this is why the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) was absolutely right—that we use these grace periods to get long-term solutions.
My hon. Friend is also absolutely right that our commitment to the Good Friday/Belfast agreement is steadfast. That is why all the actions we have taken, both last year and recently, have been about ensuring that we do not have borders, and that we respect the north-south and east-west dimensions. There is another important point here, which I hope has come through in the conversations we have been able to organise with Vice-President Šefčovič recently: it is important to understand the effect on the sense of identity that people in the Unionist community in Northern Ireland have. After the actions of that Friday a few weeks ago, it is important to repair that.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
It really is a new experience to be lectured by the European Research Group about the Good Friday agreement. Last week, the Secretary of State rushed out—sneaked out—an announcement unilaterally on Budget day that his Government would once again break international law. Given that Governments across Europe and politicians on Capitol Hill and in the White House are furious about this move, is the Secretary of State at all concerned that this Government’s reputation is in tatters across the world?
Brandon Lewis
I am afraid that I have to contradict the hon. Gentleman on pretty much every point he has just made. First of all, I do not think it is sneaking out of the House to stand here and make these points at oral questions, as we did last week. I outlined at oral questions the measures that we were taking, and obviously colleagues asked questions on them. We published the written ministerial statement, as well as, obviously, publishing guidance and other matters more publicly after that. So I do not think that really qualifies for that.
In terms of lawfulness, these are lawful actions, as I outlined last week and I have outlined already this afternoon in answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley. They are about implementing the protocol and they fit with our obligations under the protocol. We will continue to make sure that we deliver on that in a pragmatic and flexible way to work for the people of Northern Ireland. It is indeed international, but this is a lawful action.
I would just say that, bearing in mind that the Irish Government took similar action themselves just a few weeks ago and that these are temporary, pragmatic operational things to ensure that the protocol can work and to avoid further tensions and problems for people across communities in Northern Ireland, I would hope that people across the EU and our friends in the US will see that this is an important piece of work that we have done to ensure that we can deliver on the protocol, respecting the Good Friday agreement in all its strands—not just north-south but, importantly, east-west as well.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) [V]
One of the key aims of the Northern Irish protocol was to prevent a destabilisation of the peace process, and we all remember how Monsieur Barnier took every opportunity to remind us how important that was when negotiating the agreement, yet the shortages that we are seeing in shops now, and the disruption to trade being caused by the EU’s insistence on heavy-handed inspections, is doing just that. What does my right hon. Friend think would have been the impact on the stability of the peace process if he had not taken this action?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I know that he has a huge background of experience and knowledge of issues of Northern Ireland. What I would say to him is that I understand that the EU has recognised and, to be fair, Maroš Šefčovič himself has apologised and said it was a mistake, but the action that the EU took did happen, and it had an impact. It has had an impact in terms of tensions and feelings of identity in Northern Ireland. My view, having spoken to businesses, is that if we had not taken the action that we took last week, we would have had empty shelves in supermarkets in Northern Ireland imminently. I think that would have raised tensions further and it may well have undermined the protocol fatally, in a way that is not in the best interests of the EU, the UK or the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
I have to say that it is far from clear to me exactly what the Government are trying to achieve in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol at the moment, but whatever it is, I have to think that it can only have been damaged by what we saw happen and the continued insistence on unilateral action here. May we just have a pause and a reset, and focus on using this grace period to achieve the things that will be necessary for the long-term creation of sustainable procedures? Primary among those, surely, must be the agreement of an EU-UK veterinary protocol. Will the Secretary of State update the House on what is happening on that—what barriers remain to an agreement of that sort and when we can expect to hear of its successful conclusion?
Brandon Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We do want to work with the EU on a range of issues, and part of the issue around extending these grace periods was ensuring that we did not have a cliff edge and that we had that time and space for businesses to adapt and for us to work through some issues with the EU in a mutual way that works for everybody, as we have done this year. There were examples through January, on VAT on second-hand cars and other issues, where we worked through agreements with the EU that have worked to deliver on some of the issues for people in Northern Ireland, and we want to continue that way.
The reason we made the decision last week was purely that we were at this time-critical point. Because of the way supply lines and timelines work, if we had not made the decision last week, it would have been too late, even this week or next week, to prevent issues for supply lines into Northern Ireland. Going forward, we want to continue to work with the EU, including on issues such as that which the right hon. Gentleman outlined. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working with his counterparts in the EU on those very issues now.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Article SPS.5, paragraph 3(d) of the trade and co-operation agreement obliges the EU to ensure that its sanitary and phytosanitary procedures
“are proportionate to the risks identified”.
Is it not inconsistent with that provision for the EU to seek to end the grace period and impose full SPS checks, given that our food standards are every bit as good as its and some of the toughest in the whole world?
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend, who has a huge wealth of experience at the Dispatch Box in this particular field, is, unsurprisingly, absolutely right. We have fantastic, very high food standards here; they are world leading. That is why I hope and, as I say, I think it is right that we will be able, ultimately, to secure a good and practical, pragmatic agreement with the EU. Again, that just outlines why it was so important for us to take that action last week in order to ensure that we have the space to do exactly that.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Previously, it was “limited” and “specific” and now it is operational and pragmatic—different words, but the net result is still the same. The Secretary of State touched on this in an earlier answer, but let me press him: can he confirm whether anything that the Government have proposed in the unilateral extension of the grace period does, or potentially might, breach international legal obligations with the arrangements that we have entered into? And given his previous record on this matter, why should any partner believe a single word that the Government say?
Brandon Lewis
I think the hon. Gentleman’s question is self-contradictory. He should know from experience of the UQ last year that I will always give him a very straight answer, even if it is a difficult one. The situation, as I said to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley, is that these measures are lawful. They are within our obligations delivering on the protocol. They are operational. They are temporary, but I also say to him that we are entirely consistent. We are consistent through all these measures that our core focus is protecting the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, the peace process and ensuring that we respect that—not just north-south, but east-west as well.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
The Government have done well to postpone the bureaucratic problems of shipments into Northern Ireland and have worked hard to resolve them, but sadly, issues persist. Does the Secretary of State agree that fresh minds should be brought to bear on the conundrum? The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, for example, could call on new help and advice from qualified business experts.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have been fortunate in this role to be able to engage with and have advice and recommendations from the Northern Ireland business community through the business engagement forum, which we pull together and which meets regularly. That has been invaluable. I have also welcomed the engagement via the Joint Committee structures with representatives from business and civic society in Northern Ireland, of which more has been committed to. I hope that Vice-President Šefčovič and his team will be able to engage in more of that more quickly; it has been a few weeks since the last one. I think that it is important that we continue to take those meetings forward and that it would be good to have as much business involvement and contribution to this as possible, because that is what informs a perfectly good, really solid understanding of the needs of business for those flows of supplies for the people of Northern Ireland.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister is far keener to celebrate a yet-to-be-built bridge between Great Britain and Northern Ireland than to take responsibility for the barriers that he has put there. Just five weeks ago, he said that the protocol must not
“place… barriers of any kind…down the Irish sea.”—[Official Report, 3 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 948.]
Will the Secretary of State explain, then, why he negotiated an agreement that did just that?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady may want to have a look at the Command Paper that we published last summer around how the protocol can work. It was very clear about making sure that we had a pragmatic and flexible approach, so that goods could flow cleanly and simply for people in Northern Ireland. We have also always been very clear about building on the SPS checks, which, in one form or another, have been there since the 19th century. That is the reality of recognising the single epidemiological unit of the island of Ireland—we have always been up front and clear about that. We are also clear that we want to make sure that there is not just unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to mainland Great Britain, which we have done, but this good, flexible free flow. The impact that we have seen over the last few weeks is why we had to take the decisions that we did last week to ensure that we have time for businesses to adapt and time in other areas to work with the EU to get permanent and long-term solutions.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) [V]
We in the Conservative and Unionist party value Northern Ireland’s place in our United Kingdom. Indeed, we take the view that my home town of Belfast is as much a part of the United Kingdom as my Bournemouth constituency. While the protocol is an obvious recognition of the fact that there are two sovereign jurisdictions on the island of Ireland, one of which remains a member of the European Union, it is clear that at least so far, the protocol is not working as we had intended. As the Government look to the future, does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to work with businesses in Northern Ireland, all the parties in Northern Ireland, the EU and our friends in the Irish Government to ensure that the solutions are pragmatic and practical going forward, and crucially, that those solutions must recognise and acknowledge Northern Ireland’s place in our United Kingdom and the economic, social, political and trading position that Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom demands?
Brandon Lewis
The short answer is yes, absolutely. My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. The economic flows around the United Kingdom are obviously important to the whole of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has the strength it has because of all the parts of the UK: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I have to say—I know he agrees with me on this; it is something he rightly feels passionate about—that the United Kingdom is stronger because Northern Ireland is in it.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
Last Friday, the Government announced some temporary—I stress the word temporary—operational measures, one of which lifted the ludicrous ban on bulbs and vegetables grown in British soil being sent from GB to NI if they still have soil attached. Does the Secretary of State agree that there was never any rational basis for the ban and that with or without European Commission agreement the Government will maintain the ability to move such products from GB to Northern Ireland not only now but in the future? Our businesses need and deserve a cast-iron guarantee.
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady makes a very important point. She is absolutely right: businesses want certainty. They want guarantees going forward. We took the decision last week to extend some of the grace periods. She is correct that this is temporary. It is temporary because we are committed to delivering on our obligations in a pragmatic and sensible way for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland. That is why it is important we use the grace period to work with the EU to get permanent solutions to ensure that those kinds of products can continue to flow in the way that they should be able to, the way they have, and the way that the Command Paper and the protocol always envisaged they would.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I welcome these measures. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is incumbent on him and the Government to make sure that certain foods and indeed medicines reach citizens in every part of the United Kingdom, whether they be in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland and that to have not taken these measures would have been irresponsible? How on earth could they therefore be seen as any breach of international law or as putting any peace process at risk?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Picking up on his last point, I ask colleagues to pause for a moment and think about where we would be if we had not taken those actions. In the next couple of weeks, we would have had empty shelves in Northern Ireland. What would that have meant in terms of tensions in Northern Ireland? I personally think that would be an untenable situation for the protocol. I think the decisions we took were important in terms of ensuring we can deliver on the protocol and show that the protocol can work in a pragmatic and sensible way that works for businesses and people in Northern Ireland. We took the decision on the advice of businesses, and that is why businesses have roundly supported the position and the actions we took last week.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
I want to see extensions to the grace periods, but on a sound legal basis. If the protocol is to be sustainable, we need to see a genuine partnership between the UK and the EU to fix problems, not Northern Ireland becoming a pawn in a war of attrition with the EU. Does the Secretary of State recognise that unilateral actions undermine the constructive voices inside the EU that were working to achieve flexibilities, and therefore make finding long-term sustainable solutions more difficult, including a veterinary agreement?
Brandon Lewis
I share with the hon. Gentleman the desire to work all these things through as partners and to get an agreement with our partners in the EU on issues like this. We would have liked to have done so with these issues. Sadly, the EU had not come to an agreement on some of these issues. Ultimately, we have to do what is right by the people of the United Kingdom and, of course, within the United Kingdom the people of Northern Ireland. Much as we would have liked to have had an agreement with the EU over the decisions last week, if we had not taken those decisions last week, businesses were clear with us, there would have been an impact. Even if we had taken the decisions this week or next week, it would already have been too late to prevent a detrimental impact for businesses and people in Northern Ireland. I just say to colleagues that we took those decisions last week because of the time urgency, the time-critical situation we were in. Going forward and at all times we would much rather always agree things with the EU. Of course, that needs both partners to want to agree them and sadly as of last week the EU did not want to. I hope we will be able to re-engage and make sure that these problems are solved more permanently in agreement with the EU.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I welcome the measures my right hon. Friend has taken. Can he confirm that as he continues to work with the European Union to find those lasting solutions to the protocol, he will absolutely hold them to the commitment they are reported to have made in the Joint Committee to “act at pace” and continue to further engage with the people of Northern Ireland on the issues relating to the protocol?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There was a commitment to act at pace. As I say, we would have liked to have come to agreement on these issues, but the pace issue got ahead of us and we had to make those urgent decisions last week to avoid further disruptions and problems for people in Northern Ireland. I hope that as we go forward we can work at pace together to make sure that there are ultimately the solutions to this that work for people across the UK. Ultimately, that is in the best interests of the EU; it is also in the interests of the protocol.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
First, what effect has there been since January on time-sensitive Northern Ireland food exports to Great Britain via the Republic of Ireland and Welsh ports? Secondly, what would the Secretary of State say to Neil Alcock, of Seiont Nurseries in Arfon, just 30 miles from Holyhead, who says that he has found a way to export his plants: they go through Wales, then through England, then on a sea crossing, then through the Netherlands, Belgium and France, and then on another sea crossing to the Republic, and thence onwards?
Brandon Lewis
I would say that we are working to ensure that he does not have to go through that kind of rigmarole and can continue to trade in his business, for the benefit of his employees and the customers he is serving in Northern Ireland. That kind of flexibility is probably why the Irish Government sensibly put in flexibilities on security and safety declarations just a few weeks ago—it is not that dissimilar. What is surprising is to have Opposition Members criticising the UK Government for taking actions similar to those they never challenged the Irish Government on just a few weeks ago.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) [V]
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he is reassured that the EU now has no desire to block suppliers fulfilling contracts for vaccine distribution to Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK? Does he agree that it is only through international collaboration that we will beat this pandemic once and for all?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a global pandemic and we need to work together globally to combat it, get on top of it and be able to move back to normal life. That is particularly the case on the island of Ireland, where that single epidemiological unit means we have people who work, live, school, shop and enjoy their lives in normal times on both sides of the border—in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—so we want to be working together on that. I hope that that will continue. The working across between the Irish Government, the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive has been very strong over the past year. I have been pleased to be able to chair the Joint Committee with my sort of opposite number, Simon Coveney, where we have been bringing together our relevant Ministers to work together on the battle with covid for the benefit of people in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) [V]
The Secretary of State has referred to the temporary nature of last week’s announcement, as well as the tensions that have resulted from the implementation of the protocol for some months now. Does he grasp fully the degree of resentment that exists in Unionism in Northern Ireland, where the consent from the Unionist community has now diminished to the point where radical action and radical steps have to be taken by his Government as a matter of urgency?
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman outlines a strength of feeling that is absolutely there. The tension and palpable feeling within the Unionist community over what has happened in the past few weeks is clear, particularly following the action on that Friday night. I know he has made the case quite strongly about that. This is why it is important that we all work hard to ensure that we can find a pragmatic, flexible way to move forward to ensure that we can deliver things for the people in Northern Ireland in the way that was always intended. Ultimately, the future of the protocol will be in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland, through the consent mechanism.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he will continue to work with the EU, and hold it to its recent commitment in the Joint Committee to act at pace in further negotiations and in so doing always act in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
Yes, absolutely. From talking in the meetings we have had with Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič, I absolutely believe his commitment to wanting not only to work at pace but to understand the sense and feeling across the entire community and businesses in Northern Ireland. We had the engagement we organised for him just a few weeks ago, and the EU has pledged to do more of that engagement, which is a good thing, so that it can fully understand the needs of both communities and the business community in Northern Ireland. That is an important thing to continue as we move forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his actions in the last week. Is he aware that businesses on the mainland are already losing business as Northern Ireland retailers scramble to source supplies from outside the United Kingdom? An example is a nursery retailer in my constituency which, for the first time in its 75-year history, is ordering from non-UK firms. It has had to place orders outside the UK economy for the first time, to the tune of £10,000. Will the Secretary of State outline when he will draw a line, not just short-term but long-term, and end this protocol, which financially damages all the economies of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has been consistent in his views on the protocol more widely, and I would say to him that our work is going to be focused on working with the EU to find pragmatic, sensible, flexible solutions to ensure that the protocol can work. It is part of our obligation and commitment under the protocol to work in a way that is beneficial for the people of Northern Ireland so that they can continue to have the flow of products that they have always experienced. Ultimately, this will mean that Northern Ireland has a huge competitive advantage and a unique position in the world from which it can see its economy grow in the years ahead.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Northern Ireland protocol is an imperfect solution to a complex problem, ensuring that we continue to protect peace on the island of Ireland and Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that remains the Government’s priority, as it should be for every Member of this House?
Brandon Lewis
Absolutely. It is important that all of us in this House continually reinforce the point—I will always do—that the UK Government’s commitment to the Belfast-Good Friday agreement is unwavering, and our recognition of that and all of its strands is important. That does not conflict with our view that Northern is an integral part of the United Kingdom and that the United Kingdom is better for Northern Ireland being in it.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State think the people of Northern Ireland are stupid? The Government said that there would never be a border in the Irish sea; then they signed up to one. Then they pretended it did not exist, but said that even if it did, they were sure it would have no impact anyway. Now they are saying that, actually, there is one, but we can just ignore it. Will the right hon. Gentleman stop taking people for fools and start showing the responsible leadership required to sort this out?
Brandon Lewis
I assume that the hon. Gentleman therefore supports the moves we took last week in showing leadership to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. We have been consistent in what we wanted to deliver, and we have delivered unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to the rest of the UK market. We were always clear that we recognised the single epidemiological unit of the island of Ireland, which meant that those sanitary and phytosanitary checks would be built upon and put in place, as they have been. As the Command Paper outlined, we want to see a clear, flexible ability for businesses to trade, so that consumers in Northern Ireland will not see their everyday lives disrupted. In fact, the early paragraphs of the protocol highlight that that is the intention of the protocol. That is what we have to focus on, and that is what the decisions last week were about.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
Does the Secretary of State agree that the unique status of Northern Ireland means that it will not be possible for the EU to enforce its single market rules in the same way there as it can elsewhere in the EU? Does he also agree that the only way to achieve a sustainable solution is for the agencies in Ireland to work together with their UK equivalents to build trust and to work out how we can enforce the rules and tackle the key risks while leaving the border in a workable position that businesses can manage?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes an important and fair point. The Irish Government and their agencies work closely with the UK Government and our agencies and with the Northern Ireland Executive on a wide range of issues to the benefit of people in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and it is important that we continue to do that. He also highlights why it is important that we continue to be very clear about the needs of the people of Northern Ireland—why the protocol was put in place—recognising the unique circumstances and the complexity of the situation in Northern Ireland, and ensuring that the relationship with the Republic of Ireland can work in a smooth and effective way. As I have said before, I absolutely recognise that the EU’s core, prime focus is on the protection of the single market. We are focused not just on protecting the businesses and people of the United Kingdom but on the core determination and commitment to deliver on the Good Friday-Belfast agreement in all of its strands.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]
I support the aim of trying to minimise unnecessary and disruptive checks, but, on the method, can the Secretary of State tell the House under which article of the Northern Ireland protocol the Government have taken this decision, which he describes as “lawful”, to extend the grace periods? Is it article 16, which allows the UK unilaterally to take appropriate safeguard measures? If not, which other article is he citing as giving the Government the ability lawfully to take this step?
Brandon Lewis
As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the article 16 implementation was effectively made by the EU just a few weeks ago, not by the UK Government; that is what has started and led to some of the issues and tensions we have seen in the communities of Northern Ireland. I am pleased that the EU has apologised for that, but we need to recognise that it has had a lasting impact. The measures that I announced last Wednesday are lawful and consistent with the progressive and good-faith implementation of the protocol. They are temporary operational easements, introduced where additional delivery time is needed. They do not change our legal obligations as set out in the protocol—under any of its articles—and we continue to discuss our protocol implementation with the Joint Committee.
These measures are of a kind that is well precedented in the context of trade practice internationally, and they are consistent with our intention to discharge the obligations under the protocol in good faith. As I have said before, the measures are in line with the kind of flexibilities that the Irish Government put in place, and neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other Opposition Member has yet criticised or challenged the Irish Government for what they did. We think those are sensible measures; there are flexibilities that the Irish Government thought they needed in the same way that we do with these measures.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I am sure that my right hon. Friend welcomes the interest that is being shown by friends and partners around the world in Northern Ireland as an essential part of the United Kingdom—friends who are so interested in our status and in the work that we are trying to do to make one area of our country prosper. I am sure that he welcomes the interest that President Biden has shown, as well as many in the Irish caucus of the United States. Today, Mr Coveney and Mr Šefčovič are meeting the Irish caucus in Washington. Will my right hon. Friend tell me who is there from Her Majesty’s Government, representing the people of Northern Ireland? Is perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), or one of the Northern Ireland Office Ministers going to be in that room, ensuring that the Irish voice that is represented by this House is also present?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend, as always, makes an important point. I welcome our friends and partners around the world taking an interest in any part of the UK. Our friends in the US have always had a very clear interest in issues and matters around Northern Ireland, and have been huge supporters of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement for many years. In this role, I have had continuous engagement with colleagues in the Irish caucus who are meeting Vice-President Šefčovič and Simon Coveney today. I look forward to talking to them again in due course myself. I do not think that we are involved as a Government in that meeting today, but I hope that Vice-President Šefčovič will continue that kind of engagement, particularly with the people of Northern Ireland—in both the business community and civic society—building on the meeting that we had a few weeks ago, as he said he would, to really understand some of the issues affecting people and businesses in Northern Ireland, and therefore work with us in a positive way to remedy any issues. I welcome any interest from people around the world and their support for all strands of the Good Friday agreement.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
To be fair to the Secretary of State, he has made very little attempt to persuade the House or anybody else that the Prime Minister knew what he was doing when he signed up to the protocol, but does he recognise that he is now going to have to do a repair job to persuade not just Dublin, Brussels and Washington, but the whole of the world with which we want to work, that the UK is a reliable trading partner—and other forms of partner—because that is not there today?
Brandon Lewis
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not make similar comments about the moves that the Irish Government made in January and the flexibilities they put in place. He should support the UK Government in doing what is right for the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that, working with our partners in the EU, these temporary, pragmatic measures will give us the space to be able to get permanent, long-term solutions, in partnership. Ultimately, we will do what is right for the people of Northern Ireland in respecting the Good Friday/Belfast agreement.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I support the Government in taking necessary and proportionate action to defend Northern Irish business, but the Secretary of State will know that this House should be committed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that we cannot treat people in one part of the kingdom differently from those in the rest. Will he please redouble his efforts to build closer bilateral relations with our Irish friends? These things are best sorted out between Britain and Ireland, keeping the EU well away from the issue.
Brandon Lewis
I am keen on making sure that we have really good bilateral relationships. I have worked with members of the Irish Government over the past year and we always have very productive and positive conversations. They are good partners to work with. The Irish Government are obviously part of the EU and our negotiation is with the EU, as I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate. I hope we will be able to have a pragmatic and positive relationship with our partners in the EU, as together we find solutions to this issue that are in the interests of people in Northern Ireland and, yes, in the interests of the whole of the UK and, indeed, the EU as well.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Hong Kong: Electoral Reforms
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the planned reforms to Hong Kong’s electoral system by the Chinese National People’s Congress.
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
The United Kingdom is deeply concerned about the situation in Hong Kong and the erosion of rights enshrined under the Sino-British joint declaration. In response to these worrying developments, the United Kingdom has already taken decisive action. This includes offering a bespoke immigration path for British nationals overseas, suspending our extradition treaty with Hong Kong indefinitely and extending our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong. The United Kingdom has led international action to hold China to account. As recently as 22 February, the Foreign Secretary addressed the UN Human Rights Council to call out the systematic violation of the rights of the people of Hong Kong, making it clear that free and fair legislative elections must take place with a range of opposition voices allowed to take part.
On the question raised by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), this week meetings of China’s National People’s Congress are taking place behind closed doors. We understand that the agenda includes proposals for changes to Hong Kong’s election processes. Although the detail is yet to be revealed, these measures might include changes to the election of the Chief Executive, the removal of district councillors from the Chief Executive election committee and the possible introduction of vetting for those standing for public office to ensure that they are described as patriots who govern Hong Kong. Such measures, if introduced, would be a further attack on Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms.
Ahead of possible developments this week, the United Kingdom has raised our concerns, including with the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Hong Kong Government and the Chinese embassy in London, as have many of our international partners. The Chinese and Hong Kong authorities can be in no doubt about the seriousness of our concerns. Given recent developments, including the imposition of the national security law last year, the imposition of new rules to disqualify elected legislators in November and the mass arrests of activists in January, we are right to be deeply concerned. We are seeing concerted action to stifle democracy and the voices of those who are fighting for it.
There is still time for the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities to step back from further action to restrict the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers, and to respect Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy. We will continue working with our partners to stand up for the people of Hong Kong and hold China to its international obligations, freely assumed under international law, including through the legally binding Sino-British joint declaration.
Layla Moran [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I would like to thank the Minister for his reply.
This Government have a duty to the people of Hong Kong to guarantee their rights and the integrity of their democratic institutions. The proposals made at the National People’s Congress spell the end of democracy and of one country, two systems in Hong Kong, and are another blatant breach of the Sino-British joint declaration. In response to my last urgent question on this, the Minister told the House that the UK
“will stand up for the people of Hong Kong”,
and
“hold China to its international obligations.”—[Official Report, 12 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 1051.]
Well, here we are again. Almost every prominent member of the democratic movement is in jail. The BBC has been banned in China. Our ambassador has been rebuked just yesterday, and now free and fair elections are being erased. Surely by now, any red line that might have existed has been well and truly crossed.
On Hong Kong, China behaves like a bully, and bullies only understand words when they are followed by concerted action. Does the Minister really believe that it is going to step back? Will the Government now impose Magnitsky sanctions and other measures on the officials responsible, such as Carrie Lam and Xia Baolong? Sanctions were applied in the cases of Belarus and Alexei Navalny. Why there and not here, when we have a direct duty of care? Will the Government take this case to the International Court of Justice? It is up to us to lead that international co-ordinated effort to hold China to account. What conversations has the Minister had with our allies to join us in any actions we take?
I hope that Members across the House will join me in putting on record how welcome all Hongkongers using the British national overseas scheme are to this country. I am distressed to hear that some are now being targeted by China for doing so. Enough is enough. I urge this Government to take immediate action to protect Hong Kong, its democracy and human rights, as they are obliged to do under international law. No more excuses—it is time for real action.
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this urgent question to the House. As she rightly says, we will continue to bring together international partners to stand up for the people of Hong Kong, to call out the violation of their freedoms and to hold China to its international obligations. It is worth reminding her that the National People’s Congress is currently debating electoral reform behind closed doors. We have made clear our concerns and urge the authorities to uphold their commitments to the people of Hong Kong. She mentioned this being a clear breach of the joint declaration. We declared two breaches of the joint declaration in 2020 in response to the national security law, and when the details of these proposals are published by the NPC, we will closely examine them.
The hon. Lady also referenced our new ambassador to Beijing, who was summoned by the Chinese MFA in response to an article that was posted to the embassy’s WeChat account in her name. I strongly support the work of our ambassador in Beijing and the rest of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on this important issue. The United Kingdom is committed to media freedom and to championing democracy and human rights around the world.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I start by saying that Caroline Wilson enjoys the support of the Foreign Affairs Committee and, I am sure, everyone in this House in championing media freedom and the right of a free press to criticise a Government—even, perhaps, this one.
The actions that Her Majesty’s Government have taken in recent months are very welcome. Despite the list that the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) set out, the welcoming of British nationals overseas—the correcting of a wrong that we all made in 1984—and of Hong Kong people to the UK is important in standing up for the values that we signed into international law when we signed the Sino-British joint declaration.
I must welcome one or two things that the hon. Lady said, one of which was about Magnitsky sanctions. We really do need to see greater action. I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said in the past in championing Magnitsky sanctions and ensuring that they come into law. We now need to see names put to those charges, because this has gone on long enough. We know that the abuses of human rights in Hong Kong have continued, and we need to stand up for those who have been targeted.
Nigel Adams
I thank the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, in particular for his work on this issue and his support for our excellent ambassador, Caroline Wilson. He mentions sanctions. As he will know, we do not speculate on who may be designated. They are just one tool in our arsenal. The UK has already offered a new immigration path for BNOs, which my hon. Friend raised. We have suspended our extradition treaty with Hong Kong and extended our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong, and that is all in response to Beijing’s behaviour.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Beijing’s assault on Hong Kong’s electoral system is the latest breach of the Sino-British declaration and is viewed by experts as the final nail in the coffin of Hong Kong’s democracy. It follows the arrest and charging of 47 opposition politicians, 32 of whom were refused bail. As a signatory to the Sino-British declaration, the UK has not only a legal duty but a moral responsibility to stand up for the democratic rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong. As parliamentarians, we will feel a sense of profound sadness as we witness this steady suffocation of democracy. For the past few months, the UK Government have just been going through the motions, so may I ask the Minister these questions?
Labour welcomes the BNO offer, but there appears to have been very little planning, and a family of four need £16,000 up front. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the scheme is accessible to all BNOs, and what steps are the Government taking to support their integration into British society?
Hong Kong Watch’s latest report describes Hong Kong as being a “canary in the coalmine” of China’s expansionism, so what assessment have the UK Government made of the threats facing Taiwan, given that Chinese fighter jets and bombers buzzed Taiwanese airspace more than 300 times last year?
China’s growing presence in the UK’s critical national infrastructure clearly has implications for our own national security. What assessment has the Minister made of the role of the China General Nuclear Power group, which owns one third of Hinkley Point, but has been blacklisted in the US for stealing nuclear secrets?
The Conservative party is deeply divided over China, but we cannot afford any more dither and delay. Will the Minister work across Government to undertake an audit of the UK’s relationship with China and come back with a clear strategy to replace their failed golden era policy? What steps has the Minister taken to deliver a co-ordinated international response to China’s assaults on democracy and human rights and, finally, where on earth are those Magnitsky sanctions?
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He will have heard the response that I gave to the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), on Magnitsky sanctions. With regard to CGN’s involvement in our nuclear sector, obviously, investment involving critical infrastructure is subject to thorough scrutiny and needs to satisfy our robust legal, regulatory and national security requirements, and all projects of this nature are conducted under that regulation to ensure that our interests are protected.
As with all foreign policy priorities, the FCDO recognises the importance of cross-Whitehall collaboration, particularly on Hong Kong. The Foreign Secretary regularly chairs a ministerial group meeting attended by Ministers from across Whitehall and a number of Departments. We obviously take any threat to the joint declaration very seriously, but we need to wait and see what comes out of the National People’s Congress before making an assessment. We have already called a breach twice last year, but the hon. Gentleman will need to wait until we have seen what comes out of the NPC.
On BNOs and the integration of BNO passport holders, that is a really important question. We are working across Government and alongside civil society groups and others to support the integration of those thousands of people who will be taking up that route and arriving here. We encourage and look forward to welcoming applications from those who wish to make the United Kingdom their home. The Foreign Secretary has met the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to discuss exactly this issue. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been in contact with one of the Ministers at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and we look forward to seeing the outcome of those discussions, because it is absolutely crucial that we support those individuals who are coming here from Hong Kong.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on securing his timely urgent question. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we have heard a lot of this already before. The problem that we have in waiting for the National People’s Congress to come to a decision is that we know what will happen. The Chinese Government have already dismissed the Foreign Secretary’s comments about their failures and essentially told him to mind his own business, despite the fact that we are co-signatories to that agreement. Furthermore, we have evidence from Xinjiang, Tibet, the Christians, the Falun Gong, the entries into the South China sea, and the abuse on the border with India.
The real problem is that we sit and wait for something really substantial to happen. Other countries have moved, but we have still not come forward with Magnitsky sanctions, which were promised again and again. When will this happen? That is the only real action we can take that tells the Chinese that we have had enough of their behaviour and that they now have to step back into line with the international order or they will be sanctioned.
Nigel Adams
My right hon. Friend asks about action. Well, the action that we have taken on Hong Kong is substantial. He knows the answer on Magnitsky sanctions—we do not speculate on whom, and this is a policy area that is under constant review. Let me give him an example of our action. In response to the arrests in January, the Foreign Secretary issued a joint statement alongside his Australian, Canadian and US counterparts underscoring our concern. He also released a further statement following the charges of conspiracy to commit subversion brought against 47 of those arrested. We have made the very generous BNO offer. We have made it clear that in our view the national security law violates the joint declaration, and its use in this way to stifle political dissent contradicts the promises made by the Chinese Government as a co-signatory.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We have a video link to Alyn Smith, the SNP spokesperson, who has one minute.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]
I do feel for the Minister in this discussion, and in the further ones we will have about Hong Kong. I will do my best to be constructive. We are agreed across the House that Hong Kong matters are not a domestic affair specifically and only for Beijing. They are subject to an international agreement and subject to international law. If these measures to curtail democracy come forward—let us be realistic, we are talking about how and when, not if—it will be increasingly clear that the UK Government and global Britain look increasingly toothless, powerless and, most worryingly, friendless in this discussion. I do not say that the UK has done nothing within the UN, but where is the global coalition to move beyond warm words, inaction and concern to action against the economic interests of China. There are measures that can be taken and I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on what assessment has been made of the impact of the sanctions on Chinese economic interests domestically here, however we define domestically, and in the academic community as well. There are things that can be done while we push towards the international coalition.
Nigel Adams
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we cannot speculate on our sanctions regime. I understand why he and many hon. Members will ask the same question, but we cannot speculate on who may be designated under this regime—
Nigel Adams
No, we can’t. That would be rather foolish.
As I have said, sanctions are just one tool in our arsenal. We have already offered the immigration path for BNOs, as I said, and cancelled the extradition treaty. I have an awful lot of time for the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), who is very constructive on these issues. We are working closely with our international partners, and the work we have done with the US, with Canada and with Australia, and the statements made by the Foreign Secretary have managed to bring together the international community. As a co-signatory to this joint declaration, we have a responsibility to uphold the content and a duty to speak out when we have concerns. When we do so, it is a matter of trust, and leaders of the international community, including China, also need to live up to their responsibilities.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
There seems to be no purpose in having the Magnitsky sanctions as a tool but popping them on a shelf. If the Minister or the Department feel vulnerable in applying them in a solo fashion, what work is being done with the Five Eyes countries to introduce co-ordinated Magnitsky sanctions against the Hong Kong and Chinese officials responsible for the national security laws? My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned our allies the Americans. Just this morning, the Biden Administration reconfirmed their belief that genocide is taking place against the Uyghur at the hands of the Chinese state. What work is being done with the Minister’s counterparts in America to prevent this genocide from carrying on?
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend for the assiduous way in which she pursues this matter. She knows exactly what the longstanding policy of the British Government is: any judgment on whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent court, rather than for Governments or non-judicial bodies. She mentioned the United States. It has a different process for determining genocide that is not linked to a court decision. Of course, given our longstanding policy over many decades that this is a matter for a competent court, she will understand the reason behind the responses that she may have heard once or twice before. I make no apologies for having to repeat myself to her.
Chris Bryant
I find this so frustrating. We come back time and again, and we hear exactly the same old words: “We’re not allowed to speculate about using the Magnitsky sanctions.” We do not want anybody to speculate; we want them to use them. It is like they are z, the unnecessary letter. It is like they are an appendix that we are never prepared to use for any bodily function. We should be using them. To be honest, it feels as if the Government are completely two-faced on this—not individual Ministers, but the Government—because one day the Government say, “Yes, it’s terrible what’s happening in Hong Kong. Yes, it’s terrible what’s happening in Xinjiang province,” and the next day the Prime Minister says that he is “fervently Sinophile”. Frankly, we should be calling this out with a great deal of urgency, and we should be using every single tool in the box, so please Minister do not give us all the old stuff all over again. Just get on and do it.
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman needs to be congratulated for the work that he has done in the first place, working cross party, to allow and help the Foreign Secretary to deliver our own sanctions regime. Again, we continue to hold China to account. We lead international efforts in that regard. We work very closely with not just the US Administration. We have a huge opportunity this year through our presidency of the G7. What I will say to him—I will try to use slightly different language from that in the answer I provided to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani)—is that we are carefully and closely considering further designations under our global human rights regime. They were introduced, as he knows, in July, and we will keep all evidence and potential listings under very close review.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) [V]
What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the impact of the national security law and the further dismantling of human rights in Hong Kong on freedom of religion or belief, particularly in the light of the raid on Good Neighbour North District Church, the freezing of its bank account, and the Catholic diocese of Hong Kong’s instructions to clergy to be careful in their sermons? What implications does the proposed national security education curriculum have for FORB in faith schools there?
Nigel Adams
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work as the Prime Minister’s envoy for freedom of religion or belief. We are deeply concerned about the issues that she has raised, and about the severity and scale of violations and the abuses of freedom of religion or belief in many parts of the world, including China. Religious intolerance and persecution are often at the heart of foreign and development policy challenges. Where freedom of religion or belief is under attack, other human rights are often threatened too, as she knows full well. The prosperity of Hong Kong and the way of life relies on respect for those fundamental freedoms. We are committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for everyone.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
As the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, freedom of expression is under attack in Hong Kong like never before. With the introduction of national security education, new censorship guidelines encouraging students and teachers to monitor each other for thought crime, and the removal of pro-democracy academics, the chilling effect on the education sector in Hong Kong is profound. Unfortunately, the UK Government’s visa programme favours the richest in Hong Kong society because of the high costs of the BNO visa route. What steps will the UK Government take to make it easier for students, academics and intellectuals to seek refuge in our democracy?
Nigel Adams
We are actively encouraging people and their immediate family members to apply through our new bespoke immigration route. They will be able to come here to live, study and work. They will be able to choose whether to apply for 30 months’ leave in the first instance, followed by a further 30 months, or to apply straight away for five years. Of course, there is an application fee, as well as the associated immigration health surcharge. Since 23 February, applicants have been able to apply via a fully digitally accessed process. We did an impact assessment in October, and we now estimate that between 123,000 and 153,000 BNOs and their dependants could take up the route in its first year. That is a forecast as exact uptake is likely to vary, but, especially looking over five years, potentially between a quarter of a million and 300,000 people will be using this route—something the whole House will welcome.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the next speaker, let me just say that I want to get everybody in on this urgent question, and we have two very well-subscribed debates later, so I ask for single questions, and I am sure the Minister will be succinct in his replies.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) [V]
The reported proposals in China’s National People’s Congress to change Hong Kong’s electoral system will break the promises that she has made and end democracy in Hong Kong. With almost every prominent leader in Hong Kong’s democracy movement now on trial, in exile or in jail, what steps are the Government taking in multilateral institutions to hold China to account for her actions?
Nigel Adams
One example of that was on 22 February, when the Foreign Secretary addressed the United Nations Human Rights Council calling out the systematic violation of the rights of the people of Hong Kong. We have made it clear that free and fair legislative elections must take place. The impact of our diplomacy is reflected in the growing number of countries supporting the statements that we have led or co-ordinated at the UN: we have gone from 23 countries to 39 within a year. This sends a powerful message to China about the breadth of international concern.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
Will the Minister raise with the Chinese authorities the cases of Lee Cheuk-yan, the general secretary of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, and Carol Ng, its former chair, who have been arrested and charged with organising an illegal assembly and with subversion of the national security law for participating in the democratic primaries? What action do the Government intend to take against those UK-based companies that have expressed support for the national security law, like HSBC and Jardine Matheson, and Swire, which has victimised its workers who have expressed opposition to this law?
Nigel Adams
Through our network, we raise our concerns and have constantly raised our concerns with the Hong Kong authorities, and we will continue to do so. I will make sure that I get an update with reference to the two cases that the right hon. Gentleman refers to.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is clear that Conservative MPs are deeply divided over how to respond to the Chinese Government’s increasingly belligerent policies and actions, from its assault on democracy in Hong Kong, to the genocide of the Uyghurs, to its mistreatment of minorities and its aggression on the Indian border and in the South China sea. This Government are increasingly out of step with opinion in all parts of the House, so does the Minister agree that there is an urgent need for a cross-departmental strategy—it is long overdue—for our engagement with China? If so, what specifically is he doing to take that forward?
Nigel Adams
As I said in response to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) earlier, the Foreign Secretary chairs a cross-Government ministerial group. We meet regularly cross-departmentally on all issues to do with our engagement with China, including Hong Kong. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) refers to the South China sea. We have made it very clear that we encourage all parties to settle their disputes peacefully through existing legal mechanisms, particularly the UN convention on the law of the sea.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only through working with like-minded allies that we will be able to convey to China the international community’s concerns about the erosion of democracy in Hong Kong? Will the Minister ensure that those concerns, along with those of the Uyghur in Xinjiang, are raised when we host the G7 later this year?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend raises a very good point. This is a real opportunity for the United Kingdom to raise important matters, as we have the presidency of the G7. It is absolutely crucial that China understands the breadth of international concern regarding its actions not just in Xinjiang but in Hong Kong, and we are taking a leading role in that regard. I referred to the number of countries that have supported our statements at the UN General Assembly Third Committee rising from 23 to 39, and that does send a very powerful message to China.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Does the Minister share my assessment that it is inappropriate for UK-based financial institutions, such as HSBC, to have corporate sponsorship in the UK, given their public support for the national security law and the freezing of Ted Hui’s and his family’s bank accounts? Does he agree that this support undermines the UK Government’s attempts to hold the Chinese Government to account?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady raises two important point. I met Ted Hui recently, in February, and we are in close contact with a wide range of businesses in Hong Kong, but it is important that businesses themselves make their own judgment calls. Businesses, including HSBC in Hong Kong, have to do that. They need to be able to stand by each decision they make publicly. We have made a historic commitment to the people of Hong Kong to protect their autonomy and their freedom and, importantly, so did China when it signed the Sino-British joint declaration.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]
Everybody who values freedom and liberty has an interest in standing together with the people of Hong Kong, but China’s behaviour is a particular threat to the stability of that region. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to strengthen relations in the Indo-Pacific to combat Chinese aggression and the flouting of international law?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend raises a very important question. He will be aware that the Government are about to publish our integrated review, and our Indo-Pacific tilt is not just about any one country, but how we respond to the challenges and opportunities across the whole of this dynamic and important region. We will ensure that we deepen our many bilateral and multilateral partnerships in the Indo-Pacific to address together key challenges in the region and globally.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
After these latest and most troubling examples of Beijing tightening its grip on Hong Kong, how can the UK Government justify not suspending any further trade talks with China in response to its inability to live up to its international treaty obligations? With this Government’s shameful watering-down of the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill, and now this current situation, how can the Minister reassure the general public that the UK Government are not putting profit above human rights?
Nigel Adams
Of course, the situation is not as the hon. Lady describes. I understand why she has put it in such terms, but we must remember what the Trade Bill is intended to do. Its key measures will deliver for UK businesses and for consumers across the UK, and it provides continuity and certainty as we take action to build a country that is more outward-looking than before. The UK has long supported the promotion of our values globally, and we are clear that more trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) [V]
Under the Sino-British joint declaration, obligations exist that clearly state the UK will ensure a “high degree of autonomy” and way of life in Hong Kong. While I applaud Her Majesty’s Government for introducing the BNO scheme to defend the rules-based international system, we must ensure that China is held accountable, and that there are consequences for breaching a binding treaty. Will my hon. Friend outline how his Department intends to properly hold China to account for breaching the Sino-British joint declaration?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend raises a good point. We are a co-signatory to the joint declaration. We have a responsibility to uphold the content, and a duty to speak out when we have concerns, which is what we have done. We did so last year: the Foreign Secretary has declared two breaches of the joint declaration in response to the national security law, and, of course, when the details that come out of the National People’s Congress are published, we will examine them and respond accordingly.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
May I first reinforce the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) in extending the warmest possible welcome to Hongkongers coming to the United Kingdom under the BNO passport scheme? As part of that, we should all be calling out any increase in racially motivated abuse or violence against our own Chinese community.
The Minister is quite right when he says that we should not speculate about the list of who might be subject to Magnitsky sanctions, but can I say to him in the nicest possible way that that speculation will continue for as long as he and his colleagues in Government refuse to act? If he wants to end the speculation, the tools for that are in his own hands. Why will he not use them?
Nigel Adams
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the work he does with the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong. He knows what I have to say about sanctions, and that to speculate would be unhelpful, but I will just say to him—as I have said to other hon. and right hon. Members this afternoon—that we are closely and constantly reviewing our sanctions regime. I know it is not the answer that he wants immediately, but that is the situation. We will keep any designation under extremely close review.
John Howell (Henley) (Con) [V]
Does my hon. Friend agree that China’s behaviour towards Hong Kong will have a huge effect on China’s standing in the world, and particularly in Africa, where I have seen for myself the extent to which China is involved in the economies of a whole range of countries? Does this not show that China cannot be trusted as a member of the international community?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. No doubt he refers to the belt and road initiative that China has under way on that continent and elsewhere. He is right to say that it is vital that China understands the breadth of international concern about the situation not just in Hong Kong but elsewhere, and we have made clear the extent of our concern directly to the Foreign Secretary’s counterpart, Foreign Minister Wang Yi. It is precisely because we recognise China’s role in the world, as a fellow member of the G20 and a fellow permanent member of the UN Security Council, that we expect it to live up to its international obligations and the responsibilities that come with that stature.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Despite a degree of paranoia on the part of some in mainland China, they should understand that nobody here disputes its sovereignty over Hong Kong. We are, however, joint guarantors of the common law system, democratic rights and freedoms continuing for 50 years after handover. We care about these provisions because our word is our bond. How do we move beyond statements and actually deliver a co-ordinated international response with the US, the EU and democracies in the Indo-Pacific region to this assault on democracy on Hong Kong?
Nigel Adams
I agree totally with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment. This is an assault on democracy in Hong Kong. It looks like what it says on the tin: it is an attempt to stifle that democracy. As I outlined in previous responses, we are working with international partners in this regard and we will continue to do so. We will continue to communicate directly with the Hong Kong authorities and the authorities in China. We have taken robust measures, and our presidency of the G7 this year gives us a great opportunity to step up that work.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) [V]
Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what further discussions he is having with Five Eyes allies and other allies so that BNO status holders, who are most welcome in the United Kingdom, have similar rights of abode in those countries? More importantly, if we all act in lockstep, we are much more likely to influence China’s policy towards acting in accordance with international norms of behaviour.
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We are of course liaising with our international partners, including our Five Eyes colleagues. The United Kingdom is not the only country that is offering access for Hongkongers, certainly since the national security law was introduced. He will know that this is a generous offer for BNO status holders and their dependants. As I said, we are working with international partners, across Government and alongside civil society groups and others to make sure there is effective integration of BNO status holders when they arrive in the United Kingdom.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]
Several international media outlets have reported gross human rights abuses in Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet. Today, 10 March, marks the anniversary of the 1959 Tibetan uprising against the presence of the People’s Republic of China and the subsequent crackdown on Tibetan independence groups. Does the Minister agree that senior Chinese Government officials who are responsible for these abuses should be sanctioned through the global human rights Magnitsky sanctions legislation?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Member is right to mention Tibet. He knows the answer in terms of Magnitsky sanctions. We are very concerned about the human rights situation in Tibet, where there are restrictions on freedom of religion or belief, assembly and association, as well as reports of forced labour. We are urging China to respect all fundamental rights across the People’s Republic of China, including in Tibet, in line both with China’s own constitution and with the international framework to which it is a party.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
China is in clear breach of the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration, and we must stand with Hongkongers in their fight for freedom. The Minister says that China understands the breadth of international concern about these issues. If China does understand, it does not seem to respect international opinion and is not respecting human rights within China and Hong Kong. May I join the calls for Magnitsky sanctions sooner rather than later?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is right to push this point and, of course, we are constantly reviewing our regime, as he knows. We have raised our concerns directly and with our international partners, and it is no mean feat to have increased the number of countries signed up to our declaration in the manner in which we have over the past year.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
The Chinese Government insist that they are within their rights to unilaterally propose these undemocratic changes to Hong Kong’s constitutional framework, as Hong Kong’s Basic Law was enacted by the Chinese National People’s Congress. What assessment has the Minister made of the validity of this claim and whether it contradicts the Sino-British joint declaration?
Nigel Adams
As the hon. Lady knows, we called two breaches of the joint declaration last year. We will have to wait and see what comes out of the National People’s Congress, possibly this week, but who knows when we are likely to get an accurate read out? We will closely examine what comes out of this, and we will make it clear what action will be taken once we have seen it.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) [V]
My hon. Friend talks about liaising with the United States on the actions that the Communist party of China has taken in abusing human rights in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet and elsewhere. Will he also follow the example of the Biden Administration in reviewing this country’s critical infrastructure and supply chain links with the Chinese economy?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, of course. This is something that we have under review, and we have a responsibility to do so. I think I mentioned early in my remarks, for example, the work we do with China General Nuclear Power Group in the nuclear sector. He is right to raise it, and it is important that we continue to assess those arrangements regularly.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) [V]
Can the Minister tell the House which Government Department has overall responsibility for supporting the successful integration of BNO passport holders coming from Hong Kong to the UK? What support is available to Hongkongers who are travelling to the UK under the BNO visa extension? And how can he make the scheme equitable to all those who wish to come?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady makes a fair point about the offer to BNOs. Work is happening across Government, and the scheme is devised principally by the Home Office, but in close collaboration with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. We are working very closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which has the work of ensuring there is proper support not just by Government but across civil society and other groups to ensure that those who take up this route arrive here with the correct support.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) [V]
The not-yet-confirmed accounts of proposals being considered by the National People’s Congress would, if true, contradict the commitment of the UK and China that the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong, including those of speech and assembly, will remain unchanged. Does the Minister agree that they might also run against China’s own Basic Law for Hong Kong, article 45 of which states that the ultimate aim of elections in Hong Kong is the selection of a Chief Executive by universal suffrage, in accordance with democratic principles?
As chairman of the all-party China group, I will be writing to the NPC on this issue. Will my hon. Friend confirm whether he has raised this with the acting Chinese ambassador, and whether Dame Caroline Wilson has raised it with the Chinese MFA in Beijing?
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for all the work he does and has done in this area over many years. We have spoken directly to the chargé at the Chinese embassy, and our ambassador in Beijing, who has been there only a small number of months, is in regular contact there as well. My hon. Friend raises the issue of universal suffrage, and we certainly will not be taking any lessons on that from Beijing. We have made clear our concerns and urged the Chinese authorities to uphold their commitments to the people of Hong Kong. That includes respecting their fundamental rights and freedoms, and also Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State and every Member who has requested action, as I do. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps have been taken to co-ordinate with businesses in the financial sector so that they play their part in letting the Chinese Government understand that their continued acts of aggression, which make a mockery of any agreement at all, will have financial consequences?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman speaks regularly in this place on these issues and he has elevated me to Secretary of State. I thank him for that, but there has not been a reshuffle just yet. [Interruption.] That is kind of the Opposition spokesman, but that has certainly not occurred. I am, however, happy to be here responding to this urgent question. We are regularly in touch with businesses in the region to make sure that they are living up to their responsibilities. Whatever decisions they take they have to be responsible for publicly. That is probably the best way of putting the response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Minister accept that an estimated 250 to 300 former naval and military personnel are at particular risk as Hongkongers who served the British Crown? Will he discuss with the Home Office the fact that it has said in answer to questions, both in June last year and January this year, that their situation is under review and that it is time for that review to be brought to a close and for those Hongkongers who served this country but were not awarded citizenship to have their right to come here now granted?
Nigel Adams
My right hon. Friend raises an important point, and I assure him that I will have those conversations on behalf of those who have served the United Kingdom in the way he describes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question and suspend the House for three minutes to make the necessary arrangements for the next business.
Pig Husbandry (Farrowing)
Wednesday 10th March 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Pig Husbandry (Farrowing) Bill 2019-21 View all Pig Husbandry (Farrowing) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use of farrowing crates in pig farming; and for connected purposes.
I am delighted that, because we have these hybrid proceedings, a number of colleagues appear to be present. They may not all be unanimous in support for the Bill, but my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), certainly is.
Pigs happen to be my wife’s favourite animals, and she has never suggested that she married one—in case anyone was thinking that.
It gives me great pleasure to present the Pig Husbandry (Farrowing) Bill. The aim of the Bill is to prohibit the cruel and unnatural use of farrowing crates. Just over 50% of sows are placed in these crates a few days before giving birth; it is called farrowing. They are kept there until the piglets are weaned at three to four weeks of age. Sows are, therefore, often kept in these crates for nine to 10 weeks a year, and, in some cases, for longer. The crates are so narrow that the sow cannot turn around.
Almost exactly 30 years ago, on 21 January 1991, Sir Richard Body—one of my predecessors representing Basildon—introduced a private Member’s Bill that sought to ban the use of sow stalls, which were used to confine sows during their pregnancy. A few months later in April, the then Ministry of Agriculture adopted his Bill and banned sow stalls from 1999. That led to a European Union-wide partial ban that came into effect in 2013.
It is with similar intentions that I introduce this Bill. I hope the Government will confirm to me that they will either adopt the Bill or take steps to bring forward their own regulations—I have no vanity on this issue; I just want action on it—and that we will have the same end result: a ban on the use of farrowing crates in England.
In the 1990s, we led the way in developing legislation to enhance the welfare of pigs. That led to substantial improvements that were copied throughout our continent. Yet today, 30 years on, we still permit the use of farrowing crates for sows. Unfortunately, we now find ourselves falling behind nations where laws are either in place or due to come into effect to end the use of farrowing crates altogether or to limit their use to just a few days around farrowing. Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Austria and, most relevant of all in the light of it being a major pig farming nation, Germany have all enacted such legislation.
As a patron of the wonderful Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, I must thank Lorraine Platt for her invaluable work on advancing animal welfare and animal rights. My goodness, my party has come a long way since I was first elected, together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who takes a different view on this subject. How we have altered our views on animal welfare issues. The foundation’s report details how, despite there being over 200,000 sows confined in farrowing crates each year, the scientific evidence is being ignored and a ban on these crates will have a positive effect on sow welfare.
While confined in farrowing crates, these sensitive and—this is not always understood—intelligent animals are unable to express many of their natural behaviours. How many people realise that they actually make a nest? That is their natural instinct. A recent study found that these sentient beings are intelligent enough even to use a computer joystick to control a curser on a screen to earn a treat. The crates result in the sow being forced to give birth in a tiny space and then nurse their young through bars. The space in the crate is so restricted that all the sows can do is stand up and lie down until their piglets are weaned. Confined in these crates, sows bite and chew the bars, and scrape at the floor in frustration, only to endure painful wounds and sores.
A range of free farrowing pens which provide more space for sows has been developed, including by innovative British engineers, scientists and farmers. We often hear the industry argue that farrowing crates are needed to protect the piglets from being crushed—I am probably second-guessing my right hon. Friend’s speech against the Bill—yet scientific research shows that in well designed and well managed free farrowing pens piglet mortality can be as low or even lower than in farrowing crates. Not only that, but they have been shown to improve productivity and provide many benefits for sow welfare. Forty per cent. of the United Kingdom’s sows are reared in these systems. Calculations based on figures from the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board show that piglet mortality has been lower in outdoor systems than in indoor systems in 19 of the last 20 years. This is a great opportunity to improve the welfare of British sows, enhance our country’s reputation for advancing animal welfare and support the ingenuity of British developers.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recently published its agricultural transition plan, which recognises that the future farm subsidies scheme
“could relate to improving animal welfare in relation to confinement (e.g. the use of cages and crates)”.
That is very much welcome. However, it must be noted that legislation is needed to make these improvements to pig welfare mandatory. Payments to help farmers reach the required standard of animal welfare would, I am sure, speed the process up considerably.
The Bill I am presenting today foresees that the use of farrowing crates would be prohibited from 2027. This is ample time to allow farmers using these systems to phase them out and take advantage of the Government’s new agricultural support scheme for financial assistance in replacing crates with free farrowing systems.
In 2019, the wonderful organisation Compassion in World Farming led a coalition of United Kingdom animal welfare charities in securing over 107,000 signatures on petition No. 243448 calling for Britain to “End the Cage Age”. That petition was echoed by a European citizens’ initiative, which was supported by 170 animal welfare non-governmental organisations from across Europe and which secured 1.4 million signatures in support. I praise the work that Compassion in World Farming continues to do to promote animal welfare in this country, and especially in helping me to deliver this Bill.
The Prime Minister stated in this Chamber that
“there are measures we will be able to implement as a result of Brexit—such as banning sow farrowing crates”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2019; Vol. 667, c. 364-365.]
We must not waste the monumental opportunity provided by Brexit to position Britain as a global leader on animal welfare. This Bill is a significant step in delivering on that promise.
As one of the driving forces behind, and one of the first to implement, a ban on sow stalls across the European Union, the United Kingdom should not now be falling behind European Union member states in the area of pig welfare. I hope that the Government will support this Bill to ensure that it becomes law and to fully recognise the unnecessary pain and suffering that sows experience in farrowing crates. I commend the measure to the House.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and I have served together in the House for nearly 38 years. As well as being one of my oldest friends, he is a first-rate constituency MP and he speaks very well for all his constituents in his largely urban seat. In all fairness, however, I think that the voice of farmers should also be heard. I represent the constituency of Gainsborough—600 square miles of north Lincolnshire countryside, with very varied agriculture, including a number of pig farmers.
As my hon. Friend said, both of us have been campaigning for Brexit for many years and this is an opportunity to further animal welfare. I am wholly in favour of any measures to try to improve animal welfare. I love animals as much as he does. However, I disagree about the best way to achieve it when it comes to the issue of piglet welfare, and let me explain why.
Agriculture, at this time of Brexit, is in a state of transition. There are many challenges facing agriculture, including covid and customs difficulties, but the real reason why this Bill is not appropriate is that alternative farrowing systems simply allow too many piglets to die.
I fully understand the problems of existing farrowing crates. Nobody denies that. No one likes the idea of not allowing a mother sow to turn around. I speak having spoken to the pig industry here, and we must be entirely frank that this situation is not ideal, but, unfortunately, acceptable alternatives simply do not exist at present. Too many piglets will simply die if this Bill becomes law, and we know that solving one problem by creating another is generally not wise. That is what this Bill would do.
Of course, as my hon. Friend said, we have tried this before. In 1999, a dry sow stalls ban was introduced. The result was a greatly damaged pig industry. According to the industry, it was pretty much cut in half. The UK then imported larger and larger quantities of EU pork using the very stalls that were illegal in the UK. It was 14 years before that total ban was loosened.
Progress is constantly being made in the British pig sector and, in terms of animal welfare, it is far ahead of most other pig-producing countries in the world. It should be said that 40% of the national sow herd farrow freely outdoors in outdoor pig units. Of course the industry, aware of the problems and of public opinion, is constantly developing new systems, but it does need time to find solutions that bring down pig mortality. These crates were introduced to save piglets’ lives. They were not introduced out of cruelty. They were introduced by farmers who love their animals and are absolutely committed to animal welfare. The present system, therefore, is right for animal welfare. It avoids deaths.
I have spoken with the National Pig Association. It tells me that, if the Bill passes in its present form, it could result in up to 1 million baby piglets dying each year. This is foreseeable and preventable. Hon. Friends may disagree with that. I am not an expert and they are not experts. I am just repeating what the industry is saying and it is right that such a vital industry should be heard in this House. What is absolutely certain, though, is that we do not want unnecessarily to increase the number of deaths of piglets.
With regard to alternatives, there is, of course, a shortage of suitable free-draining land. I personally believe that the best way forward is to continue discussions with the industry. We have to think about stock person safety and the mental wellbeing of farm workers. We have to look at alternatives and possible trade deals and equivalence. All these issues are very important.
I commend my hon. Friend for bringing this Bill forward, but I am afraid that it is not ready to become law yet. Let us work together to protect pigs wisely and not rashly. I oppose this Bill.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sir David Amess, Ian Byrne, Dr Lisa Cameron, Tracey Crouch, Geraint Davies, Sir Roger Gale, Chris Loder, Kerry McCarthy, Andrew Rosindell, Dean Russell, Henry Smith and Theresa Villiers present the Bill.
Sir David Amess accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 272).
Estimates Day
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The debate will be led by Julian Knight, but I remind hon. Members that, immediately after Julian Knight, a four-minute time limit will be in effect. A countdown clock will be visible on the screens of hon. Members participating virtually and a clock will obviously be on the screens in the Chamber.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) [V]
This pandemic has highlighted just how widespread the responsibilities of the Department are: from our rich coastal communities that rely on tourism, to the world-renowned theatres, galleries and museums of our cities, our festivals and music events. They are all significant drivers not just of tourism spending, but of domestic spending. DCMS also has oversight of the charity sector, which has been ravaged by this pandemic.
Across the DCMS space, this has been the hardest hit of any sector in the economy. It was among the first to close and is likely to be the last to reopen. Covid is almost designed to damage the sector because it relies on the close interaction of people.
Many DCMS businesses are incredibly complex and, in the past, have not relied heavily on Government support; they have just got on making money and employing millions of people. This means, though, that the Treasury is perhaps less familiar with the intricacies of their work than with other more regulated businesses and industries such as financial services. It also means, to be frank, that there is less knowledge about how best to support them as we recover.
Before the pandemic, Britain’s DCMS sectors were some of the fastest growing, with the creative industries growing at three times the rate of the UK economy as a whole. The creative industries alone contributed over £115 billion to the UK in 2019. That is equivalent to £315 million almost every day, which is a phenomenal contribution. We have world leadership in many of the sectors, including games, music—we have 9% of global music sales—and, as I will return to shortly, festivals and live music events. Covid-19 has meant that most of those sectors have been shuttered for almost a year, with several months yet before they are able to reopen under the Government’s road map. The Prime Minister’s road map set out dates that can now be the target for entertainers, producers, technical staff and audiences alike to get their shows back on the road, so to speak.
The DCMS sectors are estimated to account for over a fifth of the UK economy. Without the growth from those sectors, the UK economy would have been in recession for three of the last four years; yet DCMS spends less than 1% of total Government spending. Although it has some very fine Ministers and officials, it is still seen as somewhat of a Cinderella Department within Westminster. That should not be the case, because those sectors are crucial to our aspirations for global Britain.
Approximately one third of our creatives have been unable to access any Government support during the pandemic, apart from universal credit. It has been difficult for them to meet the rules of the Treasury support schemes due to the fact that they may not have enough evidence of past income to prove what they need. Those excluded are still excluded, and I have to say that many of them are in a very desperate state indeed today.
The culture recovery fund, which the Minister will no doubt refer to, was incredibly welcome, with its £1.57 billion for the arts, but that money was less than half what the sector said that it needed. The second tranche of money is coming to the end of its allocation while thousands of creative businesses remain unable to operate, whereas the tranche of money announced in December still has not been fully distributed. There are question marks over the pattern of distribution, which my Committee will raise with the Arts Council on 12 April. There is a feeling that perhaps those with the sharpest elbows—those with the biggest names—have benefited the most.
I am hopeful, though, that the welcome extra £300 million of investment into the culture recovery fund that was announced in the Budget will mean, effectively, that some of the harder-to-reach community organisations that may not have benefited from the first tranche of cash will be able to benefit in the months ahead. They will help to rebuild our cultural recovery from the ground floor up. It is, however, probably still not enough to see our world-leading arts through the pandemic and post-pandemic period. It is therefore vital that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport gets the recovery right, and continues to provide sector-specific tailored support to those industries, which must be given the support and certainty to reopen as it becomes safe to do so.
There are questions to be asked about the support that those sectors are getting from DCMS, and how best it ought to be directed. For many months the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has been arguing for a number of measures, be it an extension of VAT relief so that companies are in a position to sell tickets and benefit from it, to the expansion of reinsurance schemes to cover live events, live performances and the music festival season.
It was a relief to see in the Budget last week that the Chancellor listened, and that an extension of the VAT cut has been announced. Undoubtedly, that will be the push needed over the summer for many of our hospitality and tourism businesses, which have suffered so greatly, but for cultural events and exhibitions alike that may not be enough. To benefit from the reduced rate, they must be able to sell tickets and, up to this point, events have not been happening.
For live events truly to survive this season, the reassurance of a Government-backed insurance scheme is key. It is estimated that a £650 million insurance scheme for live events would allow more than £2 billion of activity to go ahead. That is thousands of jobs across the country— 975 festivals. I know that everyone thinks of them as basically a bunch of kids in a muddy field in Glastonbury, but that is an outlier; we are talking about festivals of small, medium and large scale in all our constituencies across the country. We all know people who appreciate these cultural events—the way they feed into our cultural bloodstream and their vital importance to our way of life.
While there is any possibility of events being cancelled, the industry relies on Government-backed insurance. There is market failure; no one in the private sector is covering covid. The industry cannot survive without a second summer season in a row. It must be said that the live events sector, in which we are world leaders, is near vanishing point. I was pleased to see the extension of the film and TV production restart scheme, giving producers the confidence to return to production, yet the same confidence is key for live events to be able to survive.
At this juncture, I want to flag to the House an important matter that is increasingly coming to my attention. The uncertainty surrounding the live events sector and the increasing desperation of consumers to enjoy themselves once again is leading to the potential for real consumer detriment, with the sale of tickets for events that will not take place or have no possibility of taking place at full capacity.
I am increasingly getting reports of individuals who say that they are hosting a festival but have no permission to do so yet, yet they are selling tickets on the promise of live entertainment in the future. Even if they later have to cancel that festival, there is every chance that they will still make some money, because many people may not ask for their money back as a refund. I alert the House that, without the surety of an insurance scheme and getting everything in black and white, there is an opportunity for potentially less scrupulous individuals to make money out of our hopes and ambitions for a great summer.
That is without even looking into the tremendous knock-on effects on the local economies of places that play host to live events. As I referenced earlier, Glastonbury generates over £100 million for the south-west, but more generally, in all our constituencies, for every £10 spent on a live music ticket, £17 is spent in the local economy. Essentially, without the creative industries and live events, there will be no economic recovery from the pandemic.
The UK is poised to host COP26 later this year. The world will be watching on as we host that great event. It is key that we get the pilots up and running. The National Exhibition Centre, one of the largest organisers and hosts of events in the country, tells me that without the pilots—without ways of testing covid-security, access into events and the way they are organised, and without trying to get individuals re-involved in the supply chain—there is every chance that COP26 will be like the austerity games, the Olympic games post the second world war; they will not be the jamboree that the Prime Minister hopes for, because we do not have the wherewithal. We are losing muscle from these sectors, and we need to replenish it in short order. I therefore urge the Government to get a handle on this and to ensure that the pilots go ahead as quickly as possible—a date of May is mentioned to me as essential—to ensure success at the back end of the year.
The cultural and creative sectors are one of the UK’s greatest exports, but they do vital work in our communities too. Even among those institutions that will survive the pandemic, such as the Royal Shakespeare Company, there is likely to be a reduction in outreach programmes. Similarly, with another significant underspend in the National Citizen Service, poor and minority ethnic children, already worst affected by the prolonged closure of schools, will be those worst affected by a lack of outreach programmes and access.
Social mobility stands to suffer significantly as the arts and performance struggle. In normal times, Britain’s cultural and creative sectors are world-beating, thriving growth sectors; without significant support in the recovery, the damage of covid-19 will scar these industries for years to come.
Finally, I wish to touch on EU visas. Creatives and those in all the parts of the sectors covered by DCMS, including the games industry, performance, music, theatre and cultural events, are frankly bemused at the current arrangement—or lack thereof—with our partners in the EU. In effect, the industry has had a no-deal Brexit. Many Members represent fishing constituencies and we have spent a lot of time and bandwidth talking about that; however, we did not settle the issue of access for our creative people, in respect of whom we had an economic advantage over the EU and with the EU prior to departure. That is a major oversight.
We now face the prospect of having to go to each country in turn to negotiate visa arrangements individually. As yet, we do not know precisely what our asks are, which I find quite incredible considering our huge balance of trade surplus in the creative sectors. We really must ensure that individuals are able to travel as freely as possible and to take their equipment with them through cabotage. After all, the sector is all about people. It is about some of our most creative people—people who represent Britain on the world stage and make our lives better. Although the Government have offered a lot of support over the past 12 months—I acknowledge that—we cannot take our eye off the ball now. More work needs to be done and we all need to put our shoulders to the wheel.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight). Although we are on different political sides, those of us who serve on the Committee are in complete agreement on these issues.
Last week, when we debated the cultural and entertainment sectors, I made a few points on which I thought the Government could act in the Budget. The first related to the plight of freelance musicians, artists and others who have been excluded from the Chancellor’s criteria for support. I pointed out that in Wales some funds have been set aside for support, but that what we really needed was cross-UK action from the Chancellor. The Chancellor has done the very minimum in his Budget, by simply recognising that it has been so long for some of the excluded—that is, the newer self-employed—that they have now become eligible for the self-employment income support scheme. He has done nothing to support those excluded by his arbitrary criteria. He has decided that they are to be treated as second-class citizens. It is deliberate and unjust, and it will not be forgotten by musicians, artists and others who have been snubbed.
My second point was on the need to help to restart the live music sector with, as the Select Committee Chair said, a Government-backed insurance scheme. Our Committee wrote to the Chancellor to call for such a scheme and the response from the Government was a classic example of blinkered Treasury thinking. The insurance market cannot provide the cover needed for festivals because of covid uncertainty. The Government say that they have an irreversible plan for reopening; were they to underwrite a scheme, that would show confidence in not only live music but their own pronouncements. If their own words turned out to be true, they would never have to pay out anything.
Other countries have taken similar action, with much lower vaccine roll-out rates, and of course it is being done for film and television. For the want of a tent peg, many festivals will have to be collapsed this summer. That is the Chancellor’s second failure of policy and action. As the Select Committee Chair pointed out, there are now opportunities for the scammers and outlaw companies such as Viagogo to take advantage by once again ripping off people who want to buy tickets for events that might never happen and might never exist.
Thirdly, the Chancellor should have announced a scheme to ensure that musicians and artists could resume touring in EU countries. I note the launch of the “Carry on Touring” campaign’s website today. On social media today I saw the case of someone called Ed Lyon, a classical musician who has just spent six weeks and £945 to obtain a work permit for Belgium. Previously, in normal times, he could have just hopped on a train. The Chancellor is utterly complacent about the loss of export earnings to UK that this continuing fiasco will bring. Lord Frost is now his Cabinet colleague. Why has he not been told to do the job that he so abjectly failed to do in December when he delivered a no-deal Brexit for artists, musicians and their ancillary support industries?
This Budget, despite some investment, did not do nearly enough to save jobs and support growth in the creative industries—the sectors with the fastest growth potential. It has left freelance workers out in the cold, it has thrown a summer of music into a muddy field of uncertainty and it has closed the gate on touring for our creative artists and musicians. Far from doing “whatever it takes”, it has taken away the opportunity to create.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) [V]
The Government have provided substantial support for the cultural, sporting and creative sectors since the start of the covid pandemic. This has been welcome but also essential, as many organisations within these sectors rely on revenue from tickets and events to survive. Through no fault of their own, they have been required to close, and the cultural recovery fund, in addition to the funding to support sports and TV and film production, has helped many important bodies to keep going that otherwise might have closed for good.
However, we now need to focus on the road ahead, through to the lifting of the covid social contact restrictions on 21 June and beyond. The coronavirus has challenged the whole of our society, but it has also exposed further weaknesses in sectors that in some cases we already knew about. The point has been well made about the need for pandemic insurance for the events industry. Events and live performances have already become incredibly important to the music sector, because the remuneration that artists get from on-demand streaming services is relatively low, but these events will not take place unless an insurance scheme can be put in place.
This is not just about events that could be held this summer; it needs to be done on an ongoing basis. It could be some time before the industry has any certainty, because new variants of covid might require further restrictions on the capacity of audiences and therefore restrict the viability of the event itself. Just as, several years ago, the Government partnered with the insurance industry to create Flood Re to minimise the risk of flood insurance and reduce the costs, we need a similar scheme to help to make insuring live events viable and reduce the cost to people putting on those events.
In football, the lack of a strong national governing body for the sport that is able to ensure fair dealing in financial matters has been badly exposed. Many football clubs were in great distress before the pandemic struck. Clubs in the championship division of the English football league were routinely spending more than they earned each year on players’ salaries alone, and were running a financially unsustainable model. There has been no real recognition of the impact of the covid restrictions on professional football. The money within the game has not been enough to solve all the problems, and the support that has been given is minimal. Many clubs continue to rack up large debts. At the moment, a lot of the football league is being run on unpaid taxes. It is believed that the amount of unpaid taxes owed to HMRC by football clubs could be in the hundreds of millions of pounds. We need a proper financial regulator for football to ensure that clubs are run on a sustainable basis for the long term, but in the short term we may need to look at how some sort of financial assistance can be given to those most in distress. Clubs outside the premier league are largely community assets, and they need to be run in a sustainable way.
I want to make two other points briefly. The last 12 months have exposed just how influential disinformation and hate speech on social media can be, particularly in relation to anti-vaccine campaigns to undermine confidence in the vaccine and spread conspiracy theories about the pandemic. It makes the bringing forward of the online harms Bill this year so important for the Department, and we must also ensure that there are proper resources for Ofcom, as the regulator, to ensure that there can be proper auditing and inspection of the way social media companies respond to campaigns of disinformation and hate speech, and other speech that can cause harm through social media networks. We have been talking about this for many years and I am glad that the Bill is coming, but it is also an imperative.
Finally, the pandemic has also had a big impact on the advertising industry and broadcasting revenues from advertising, just as other media have struggled with revenue from advertising. There is no guarantee that this money will bounce back, particularly as audiences are increasingly diverting their attention to online services—social media to receive news and on-demand platforms to view content. Increasingly, many people spend time not watching broadcast material at all, but playing games and doing other things online. This potentially undermines the public service broadcasting model in this country. I welcome the fact that we have the PSB review, but we need to understand that the long-term impacts of rising production costs for television due to the impact of Netflix and Amazon Prime and of declining advertising revenues because of switching audience attention are fundamentally changing the market, and if we have media that—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am afraid we do have to move on.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
Madam Deputy Speaker, first, can I refer you to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I do not think that my continuing association with the live entertainment industry represents any conflict of interest; rather, it gives me an insight into the trauma that this industry has faced during the pandemic.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am speaking to you from the great city of Edinburgh, whose name is synonymous with cultural creativity, and has been since the days of the Scottish enlightenment. In the modern era, the city has become host to the world’s pre-eminent arts festivals, and every August more than 2 million people congregate on the streets of Scotland’s capital to celebrate, participate and perform—every August until last August. The Edinburgh festivals, and the fringe in particular, are not only the largest platform in the world for Scottish talent, but the largest platform anywhere in the world for English talent, which is a reason by itself for DCMS to be extremely concerned about its future.
As we debate this matter this week, people are meeting in Edinburgh and beyond—venues and producers are meeting with city and national Government—to see whether it will be possible for the 2021 festivals to go ahead. They are grappling with a terrible dilemma. How on the one hand do we respect, maintain and protect public health in a situation where the virus is still transmitting in the community, while at the same time trying to stage events that, by their very nature, are about bringing people together and causing human interaction? We do not yet know what is going to happen in 2021, but we do know that most of the activity will be outdoors, and it will be considerably smaller and shorter-lasting than before.
We must see this not as a return to normal, but as one step towards a recovery that will take several years. That means that we need to press for a commitment from this Government in the medium term—not just for months, but for years. It would be churlish not to recognise the great efforts that have been made by the UK and Scottish Governments towards the sector, and that is widely acknowledged, but just because it has been good, that does not mean it cannot be better, and there are three things that the DCMS really ought to consider doing as a matter of priority.
The first thing is insurance. It is almost impossible now to get insurance against the cancellation of a live event because of covid-19. The Government should step in and either provide a scheme directly or underwrite one if they do want these events to go ahead, because producers simply cannot take the risk of committing vast sums of money to pre-production and planning.
Secondly, we need to continue business support not just for one year, but through at least until 2024. That means the Government must make funds available directly through funding in England and through consequential funding to the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The third thing we need DCMS to do is to be much more of a champion for this sector. We have heard already how this Department is very much the Cinderella of Government Departments. That has to stop, and we need people who will stand up for the sector and advocate for what is necessary. That applies in particular in relation to the Treasury, which is responsible for most of the direct wage support. We need to try to get through the tin ear of the Treasury and make sure that it responds to the very great gaps in support that particularly afflict this sector more than others. If we do that, then when we come back in a year’s time, we may still have a sector to be proud of. If we do not, it may be very much in jeopardy.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) [V]
I want to begin by putting on record my thanks to the Department for its efforts during the pandemic. From my personal experience as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for museums, I know that the Minister for Digital and Culture, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), and, indeed, the Secretary of State have made themselves readily available to discuss issues and concerns in the sector. I know that the National Museum Directors’ Council has felt able to raise issues and has found the Department to be a listening one.
The pandemic has meant that the Department has gone from being one of the Departments with the smallest budgets in Whitehall to effectively a delivery agency to keep our wonderful and important cultural institutions afloat. Without the culture recovery fund and other funds that the Department has allocated, I fear for the sustainability of our museums and vital cultural attractions. Clearly, there are issues about when museums, in particular, can open, and I urge that they are given the earliest opportunity to do so, as they have proven that they can be covid secure. However, I welcome the extension of the culture recovery fund to September, which will be a lifeline for organisations.
Financial support does not equal instant recovery. Restrictions will continue on income-generating activities for museums, and the lack of international tourism will affect museums well into 2022 if not into 2023. That will be the case, as has been mentioned, for all cultural events. Continued support from the Department will be needed to avoid closures and job losses.
If the Department is looking for additional policy ideas to enhance its already impressive levels of support, I want to put several on record. First, a sunset clause is approaching in April 2022 for the museums and galleries exhibition tax relief, which has been a huge enabler for the sector. I urge the Department gently to persuade the Treasury to extend the relief permanently. There is also the need to address underlying issues that were already in existence before the pandemic began, particularly the need for capital investment in museums that are in need of repair so that they can maintain their estates. The backlog is substantial. I request that the Department confirm as soon as possible when museums will receive money promised in the museums maintenance, estate and development fund, and whether this vital fund will continue into the next three years, as was originally planned before the pandemic began. It is vital that it does.
It is a truism that our past points the direction to our future, and this is equally true when it comes to recovering from the pandemic. We cannot afford to lose our unique and wonderful cultural heritage, which needs our help now. In return, it will be there for us in the future, both as institutions that can help level up local communities and as something that can assist our educational recovery. These are internationally renowned cultural centres that I believe we have a duty of care to protect and preserve for future generations.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
Let me thank and congratulate the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) for how they have jointly championed the sector on a cross-party basis. They have raised the issues of the lack of support for freelancers, the touring threat as a result of Brexit, and insurance. I fully support them in that. I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to sit down with Equity, the trade union, to discuss a number of the issues, as the union has been developing solutions to them.
I am also a member of the PCS trade union parliamentary group. PCS represents members working in museums, the royal palaces, galleries and historical sites, and is now yet again faced with large numbers of job threats.
The Government have brought forward financial support, as we have heard, with £1.5 billion and an additional £400 million in the Budget, but as the Chair of the Select Committee has said, that is less than half what is needed. It is taking too long to arrive and too long to distribute, and as a result we heard this week that six out of 10 museums are fearful for their future. Charlotte Higgins, the chief culture writer for The Guardian, summed it up exactly right:
“the government has not exactly abandoned the arts so much as behaved in a hesitant, inconsistent and basically incompetent manner easily recognisable from its approach to Covid-19 as a whole.”
What we need now is a longer-term strategy, as a number of Members have said, because I am fearful.
Let us take the example of the National Gallery. PCS represents members there, and some of the services have been privatised. Securitas, the private company that provides security and front-of-house services at the National Gallery, has announced a 20% cut in staffing. Compulsory redundancies are not being ruled out, and this is an institution that has received Government support. That comes on top of redundancies that took place in 2019, when there was a restructuring. It is proposing the temporary closure of some of the rooms and putting an emphasis on paid exhibitions rather than free access. There is a view that when these cuts are rolled out, they will put the safety of the collection and visitors at risk.
What has also angered staff is that, as a result of the privatisation, it is the lowest-paid staff who are being laid off or having their pay cut, as well as a higher proportion of black, Asian and minority ethnic staff. In addition, the National Gallery spending several million pounds on extensive refurbishment of the front entrance to the building is not going down well with staff or supporters. It has to be remembered that those staff who have been privatised receive only a quarter of what they would have received in redundancy pay if they were employed by the gallery. The union will oppose those cuts and seek to negotiate them—of course it will—but this emphasises the need for a longer-term strategy.
We have all acknowledged in the debate so far that the recovery in this sector will take longer than originally expected—it will take the next few years, if not longer—so there needs to be a longer-term plan. We urge the Secretary of State to bring together all the stakeholders in this sector with the trade unions and management of the galleries, museums and sites to ensure that we discuss what is really needed, plan the investment that is needed and its roll-out and distribution, and ensure that it goes as rapidly as possible to secure this sector, which does not just bring income to this country but improves the quality of all our lives.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. To keep close to the subject matter and the departmental responsibilities, with apologies to culture, I will briefly touch on one digital issue, one media issue and one sport issue, each pertinent and potent to my constituents.
I turn first to digital and, in particular, broadband and mobile coverage. I welcome the Government’s up-front commitment to the roll-out of gigabit-capable broadband across the country, not least the £5 billion pledged in the Conservative manifesto and set aside to cover at least 85% of the country by 2025. I remind the House that 1 gigabit is 1,000 megabits and—given the 12 megabits per second that me, my wife and my four children have been living with over the last year—that is a huge difference, not least for many in my rural communities, with the burgeoning economic, social and health benefits that have been amplified by covid.
For Eddisbury, which ranks 599th out of 650 constituencies for superfast broadband coverage and where 12% of residents receive downloads of less than 10 megabits per second, this is an ever more vital and significant infrastructure project and one that will be truly transformative. However, it is fair to say that there is some nervousness about the speed of delivery, borne out by looking through the spending review of 2020, the recent Budget and the supplementary estimates. Only £1.2 billion of the gigabit programme’s £5 billion budget is now allocated to subsidise its roll-out over the next four years, and there is an £83.6 million reduction for the rural gigabit connectivity in capital departmental expenditure limits. It is also the case that the rural gigabit voucher scheme is set to close on 31 March this year, although I understand that a new scheme from April is in the offing; perhaps the Minister would kindly confirm so in closing the debate.
It is clear to me from previous debates we have had in the House and discussions with the excellent Digital Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), that the absolute necessity—ratcheted up and accelerated by covid—of a complete national gigabit infrastructure capability remains a real and pressing priority for both Government and industry. Any reaffirmation of that by the Minister at the Dispatch Box today, together with a renewed commitment to work alongside the telecoms industry to help remove any barriers preventing progress at pace, would be extremely helpful.
Secondly, on media and the BBC licence fee, the BBC announced in June 2019 that free licences for all over-75s would end from 1 June 2020, but implementation was delayed to 1 August last year thanks to the pandemic. In Eddisbury, over 5,700 households are affected; and nationally one in seven elderly households —or 814 in my constituency—have yet to make the necessary arrangements, meaning that they all remain at risk of sanctions. Clearly that is an absurd state of affairs, whereby if the new system does not resolve itself, it will accidentally criminalise a significant number of elderly people for literally doing nothing. Despite a strong case made by Lord Botham and others for the decriminalisation of such circumstances, it is a step that the Government are yet to take. I am sure they will return to it sooner rather than later.
Finally, I welcome the Government’s strong support for grassroots sport set out in the £300 million sport winter survival package. That has helped keep many community clubs afloat, but it is also a chance to build back better. To that end, I know the Minister is aware and very interested in advanced plans to build and open the first ever women’s and girls’ national football centre of excellence in Winsford to rival St George’s Park and help grow our grassroots sport for the generations to come. I hope support for that laudable project will feature, perhaps not in this estimates day, but in future ones.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
Good afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the outset, as chairman of the gaps in support all-party parliamentary group, may I say how grateful I am to the Chairman of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee for his support and help over the past weeks and months.
As others have pointed out, investing in culture will be part of the key to recovery in all other sectors. It is part of the way we live our lives in this country. As the Chairman of the Select Committee pointed out, live events were among the first to shut down because of the pandemic, and they will also sadly be the last to reopen.
Recently I have referred to the particular needs of our highland games. I and my party are calling for the Government to extend the 5% VAT cut to tickets for live events for up to three years. That is because so far live events, such as the highland games, have simply not been able to profit in any way from the VAT cut, because they have not been selling any tickets whatever. I hope that that will be looked upon with some favour and considered by the Government. That would be very helpful.
Sadly, I have learned today of the cancellation of yet another highland games. The Inverness highland games are not going to be held. It is worth pointing out that these events make a huge contribution to the Scottish economy. One of the downsides of my having become an MP is that I can no longer get away with masquerading as a French or German tourist and getting a free glass of Glenmorangie whisky in the tent at the Tain highland gathering, which is there for foreign visitors only. My face has become too well known. It does raise this point, which is that 25% of the people attending highland games all over Scotland are from countries outwith the UK. One can imagine the amount of money they bring into the UK. They make a very important contribution.
Changing tack to PAYE freelancers and the excluded, I welcome—it would be churlish not to—the culture recovery fund. That has been a good thing, but the reality is, as others have pointed out, that most freelancers have not worked at all in the cultural industry since March last year, so they have not benefited from the fund. As has been mentioned, Equity, the actors’ union, has a view on that. It says:
“40% of Equity members have not received a penny from the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme”,
and that is despite those same people being unable to claim through the job retention scheme.
As chair of the gaps in support APPG, I endorse Equity’s proposals that seek to support these people. One thing we could do is allow freelancers to make a claim based on total income—both trading and non-trading profits—to eliminate the 50:50 exclusion. Equally, I endorse the APPG’s proposal to implement an urgent stopgap grant of £7,500, or £2,500 for three months, under the self-employment income support scheme, to pay PAYE freelancers who have been excluded from Government support.
The fact is that, as has already been said, there is a question mark over the future of the Edinburgh festival, and I have long advocated some sort of Government support for insurance cover. It could be done—insurance cover for terrorism is already done—and I do hope that the Government will look favourably on that. At the end of the day, the Edinburgh festival fringe brings in £500 million in direct spending and a further £560 million in indirect spending to the Scottish economy, so what I say—I think we are all singing off the same sheet this afternoon—is that on the happy day that we get through the pandemic, let us celebrate, but let us also make sure that we have a culture industry that can help us celebrate.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) [V]
I want to concentrate my remarks on the media industry, which was in crisis well before the pandemic hit. The fallout from covid-19 will only worsen the situation, unless adequate support and funding is secured. As it stands, sector-specific support for journalists and, in particular, freelancers is seriously lacking. The enormous power of the tech giants has destroyed the long-established news business model. In response, the National Union of Journalists has put together a news recovery plan, which consists of a raft of measures and interventions to ensure a pluralistic, diverse and vibrant news ecosystem. It sets out specific proposals for a levy on the tech giants based on the huge profits of these companies, which have increased vastly during the pandemic. That would fund public interest journalism.
I strongly encourage the Minister to engage with the National Union of Journalists on the proposals in its recovery plan, to ensure a sustainable recovery from the pandemic. The failure to tax excess profits of tech giants will directly impact professional journalism and result in the loss of uniquely valuable regional current affairs programmes such as the BBC’s “Inside Out” programme, broadcast in constituencies such as mine. To make matters worse, the poor funding settlement arising from the last royal charter review of the BBC is resulting in a loss of 550 jobs from BBC News. The BBC is the heart of the creative economy, and supports employment in the wider sector. Indeed, every £1 spent by the BBC generates an additional £2 in the wider economy.
In addition, the impact of the Government’s failure to honour their manifesto commitment to protect free TV licences for the over-75s has not only had a direct impact on the lives of tens of thousands of elderly and vulnerable people, but has had serious consequences for BBC budgets. The pandemic has further exposed the precarious nature of freelance work and the relative lack of protection for freelance journalists. Once again, I draw the Minister’s attention to the NUJ’s freelance charter, which sets out 10 specific proposals to secure a fair deal for freelancers. These include trade union collective bargaining to improve terms and conditions for freelance journalists and equalising rights with full-time employees, including sick pay, maternity pay, paternity and parental leave, unemployment benefits, and full access to benefits and social securities.
In conclusion, I urge Ministers to work constructively with the National Union of Journalists to ensure that those who are currently excluded have access to the support they need. I also echo the comments of other right hon. and hon. Members by praising and thanking the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), and his colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), who have been extremely helpful in their listening to the concerns of Members, and proffering advice and making representations to Ministers.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) [V]
This debate is very important, because the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is going to play a crucial and central role in our recovery from the pandemic.
Historically, the core funding for DCMS is humble compared to that for many other Departments. According to my very rough calculations, for every £1 that DCMS got for core funding in 2020-21, the Department of Health and Social Care received £64, and that is quite right. The same budget for health grows by some £8 billion a year, while DCMS only gets a £100 million annual uplift, and that is also quite right. We are all acutely aware of the importance of a robust and well-funded NHS, especially at a time like this, but we must remember where that money comes from, and DCMS is one of the biggest economic contributors. A well-funded NHS would be an impossibility without those contributions.
Of course, DCMS includes the creative industries, which contributed over £115 billion to the UK’s economy in 2019. That is equivalent to £315 million every day, or over £13.1 million an hour. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) told us last week, the UK would have been in recession for each of the last three years if it had not been for the creative industries, so DCMS and all its sectors are vital, and we need to ensure that the Department has all that it needs to help those important industries back on their feet after the pandemic.
A major part of the creative industries is, of course, the performing arts—in all its guises. It is not only cash that this sector brings in; it is also an extraordinarily formidable example of soft power. To put it simply, this country is a world leader in music, theatre, television, film and fashion. We promote the UK across the globe; we promote British values and sell British goods off the back of our cultural offer. We ignore it at our peril.
We are world leaders in sport. Cricket, football, yachting—all these and many more reach every corner of the world, and they need support. As I said in the recent debate on the cultural and economic sectors, the creative industries are facing total disaster during the pandemic and will need that support. That is the challenge that DCMS now faces. To elucidate this point further, last year Oxford Economics predicted a £77 billion turnover loss over the course of 2020 compared to 2019; that is minus 31%. Moreover, the industries are projecting a drop in employment of 122,000, despite the job retention scheme, and a further 287,000 job losses among self-employed workers compared to 2019 levels. This is potentially catastrophic, not only for the country as a whole, but for each and every one of those individuals losing a job. Although I have no doubt that the Department’s budget has been set in a way that reflects the challenge, I hope that the Ministers and the Chancellor will stand ready to provide further finance if it is needed.
But it is not all about finance; it is about underwriting insurance to give confidence to producers and organisers. That has been spoken about a good deal today, and it is terribly important. It is also about freedom of movement for musicians, actors and all their kit. There are easy wins here, and not necessarily with any financial strings attached. The Government should grasp this opportunity to demonstrate their serious support for the sector.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for theatre and vice-chair of the Royal Theatrical Fund, I know how hard this particular part of our cultural offer has been hit and how many are suffering at the moment, so let us support it and put it back where it belongs: leading the world and promoting the UK. Although I am happy to support these estimates, this funding must be a floor, not a ceiling, when it comes to helping the creative industries and the other DCMS sectors to recover, which will help the UK recover.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]
It is time to think about how our sports and creative industries can help our post-pandemic recovery. Like other areas, the west midlands has been hammered by the pandemic. Our theatres, entertainment complexes and hospitality venues are on the verge of collapse. But Birmingham and west midlands residents are resilient people. That is why we are busy preparing for the Commonwealth games, hosting more than 70 teams from all around the Commonwealth, with a potential £1 billion boost to the local economy.
We are also developing the creative content hub at the Bond in Birmingham to enhance our film production facilities and digital games industry. But as many as 70% of the people who work in the creative industries are freelancers—the very people the Chancellor has consistently ignored throughout this crisis. The west midlands’ creative sector is braced for the loss of over 50,000 jobs in the aftermath of covid, so we will need more assistance.
It is not enough to be told that the culture recovery fund has been a success. Of course I welcome it, but there is little point in maintaining buildings if we lose the people who work in them. Ministers have to listen. They have to consider backing an insurance scheme to protect live music events, as others have said. They have to consider urgent action to address the barriers to creative workers travelling to Europe. We need opportunities for young people to break into the sector. How about apprenticeships in the creative industries and Government-supported scholarships for those from disadvantaged backgrounds and those who are leaving care?
I welcome the funding the Arts Council and the Heritage Lottery Fund have allocated to support the wider cultural festival that will accompany the Commonwealth games. Birmingham Council is allocating £2 million to be shared across the city, so that ordinary Brummies can be part of the event. Would it not be a good idea if the Government were to build on such initiatives by establishing a sports legacy fund, to ensure that more young people are able to enjoy healthy sporting activities? With concern rising about mental health and an epidemic of knife crime, there has never been a better time to involve our youth in sport and cultural pursuits, but we are moving in the wrong direction. As the YMCA reports, budgets have suffered a cumulative cut of 60%, and 763 youth centres have closed. What has happened to the Government’s promise of a £500 million youth investment fund?
I hope we will see more support for initiatives such as community radio. Hope Radio, based in my constituency, is a not-for-profit organisation set up to help to reach the vulnerable and isolated. It gives out valuable and useful local information, and tackles some of the vaccine myths. I should point that that one in five people in the west midlands have no access to the internet, so community radio is vital. I hope the Government will continue to support FM licences for the station and perhaps give it a bit of funding.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) [V]
There are many important aspects to cover in this debate, including sport, the creative and performing arts, events, heritage and more, as the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), said, but in the four minutes I have available, I will talk about one: tourism.
Tourism is very important for my constituency, two thirds of which lies within the South Downs national park and which contains important heritage sites including Jane Austen’s house, the Watercress line and Gilbert White’s house, but it matters to all of us nationally, accounting for close to a tenth of the economy and jobs and being an important driver of export earnings. It is also one of the sectors that has been hit hardest by covid. I welcome all the support that has been set out by others, but now is the time to think boldly about the future and how we build back better.
We have been gifted a beautiful country, incredible cultural assets, and of course the English language, but we need to do more with them. There are multiple aspects to that work. There is a long tradition of building too much capacity at the top of the cycle and too little at the bottom. I would love to hear an update from the Government on plans for 130,000 more hotel rooms, as well as the plans for aviation capacity as markets recover. I would love to hear a national yield management plan that brings together leisure travel and travel for education purposes, business conferences and events, getting more from our cultural assets, extending the season and building shoulder periods.
Secondly, on skills and productivity, I very much welcome the focus in the sector deal on productivity and in particular the development of two T-levels—that central reform of technical and vocational education—in catering and in cultural, heritage and visitor attractions.
But today I want to talk mostly about marketing. I was so pleased to hear of the independent destination management organisation review. Many DMOs have been very hard hit by the pandemic, and those immediate problems must be addressed in this review, but I hope it goes much further. DMOs are, in the best cases, co-operating. They are also generally overlapping and sometimes actually competing with one another. We need to streamline the DMO network and the interaction of all parts of the public sector that have a role in promoting and facilitating tourism.
I very much welcome the success of the GREAT campaign, which has given a consistent message that we project across the world, but there is an issue about the volume of marketing. In a recent Select Committee meeting, we heard from VisitBritain that Australia spends more in China than we do internationally. We are outspent massively in key volume markets and we are not represented at all in some important developing markets. As we start to come out of this pandemic, source markets are going to be more competitive than ever. The term “investment” gets a bit over-used these days, but this really is about investment, with tangible, bankable and quite speedy returns to create jobs and support building back better. I therefore urge the Government to think further and think bigger about how they can invest in the growth of this powerhouse sector.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I want to talk about the festival industry. The risks to events taking place this year revolve around uncertainty, even with the road map, a lack of working capital, and the ongoing absence of—much mentioned this afternoon—the insurance solution. Why does this matter? Well, it is a massive, successful, vibrant industry. There are an estimated 975 festivals in the UK each year. The sector generates £1.75 billion for the UK economy every year and supports some 85,000 jobs. According to UK Music, over 5 million people—our constituents—attended a festival in 2019, including me: Boomtown in my own constituency. As important as all the figures are, though, festivals are just good fun—remember when that was allowed?
So the Government’s road map was very welcome to our festival sector. As soon as we nearly had a vaccine, the industry was calling for a clear timeline outlining “no earlier than” dates, and step 4 clearly gives that to us. To be clear, festivals do not work with social distancing; it is just not possible. There is also the risk that they can safely go ahead this summer but the sector is not given enough time to prepare. The planning cycle is a critical factor. Festivals need an average lead time of six to eight months. The majority will make a call on their summer events in the first three months of this year, so right now is the moment. We have seen some take the plunge, such as Reading, Leeds and Boomtown, and others such as Glastonbury—with the heaviest of hearts, and breaking mine—call theirs off for a second year.
Let me touch on lack of working capital. Festivals clearly need the working capital to stage their event. It is true that some festival businesses have been helped by the excellent culture recovery fund, with very high stabilisation figures among recipients meaning that they will have sufficient funds to stage their events this year if they are allowed, but it is equally true, as shown by surveys among members of the Association of Independent Festivals, that 100% of those who applied to the fund and were not offered a grant do not have sufficient funds to stage their events. I say to the Minister that for round 2 of the CRF—I understand that we expect grants to be announced this month—we need the eligibility of festivals to be strongly recognised again and we need to help those who missed out in round 1. For many festivals without sufficient audience loyalty and brand equity to return beyond this year, if that happens, mothballing the event companies that they rely on for another year effectively means shutting down their operations, with a very real risk that they will not return.
A Government-backed insurance scheme is essential to the festival industry. I appreciate that insurance alone is not the sole barrier to kick-starting festivals, but organisers cannot enter into the usual planning for 2021 without an insurance solution. It is the key that unlocks this process. It is unfortunate that we have not yet managed to persuade the Government of the case for this. It is almost too late now for 2021, but I would like the Minister to make reference to the issue when he winds up.
This matters for all the reasons that I have touched on, but it matters right now when events, short of insurance, short of certainty and short of cash flow, are selling tickets to young people desperate for something to look forward to. We cannot have events—sometimes without a licence in place or even having contacted the safety advisory group of the respective local authority—selling tickets, often at £100-plus, on the promise of hope alone. That will do the vast majority of the industry no favours whatever, but in many ways it is a symptom of the situation that we are in.
Let us stick to the road map. Let us focus on the data and reward vaccine success with some fun this summer. With a fair wind, we may even—I know you look forward to this, Madam Deputy Speaker—see the return of Crouchfest. To borrow a phrase, that really would be back stronger.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) [V]
I am delighted to take part in this debate and to highlight the importance of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport investments in Stoke-on-Trent Central, supporting local organisations as we move to the covid-19 recovery phase. As many colleagues want to speak in this debate, I will keep my comments brief.
The culture recovery fund has already provided a lifeline for many local organisations and I will mention just a few. The Sugarmill, a small grassroots music venue, benefited from a £240,000 grant to keep it afloat. Such venues are the R&D arm of the music industry, giving those at the beginning of their careers the chance to be heard. From Coldplay to Kasabian, this Stoke venue has featured future stars.
The Clay Foundation delivers the British Ceramics Biennial festival and provides supported workshops across the city in care homes and schools. During lockdown it supplied packs of clay and tools to enable the young and the elderly to engage in creative activities which helped their wellbeing.
VAST Services received funding to look after the Dudson Museum on behalf of the family trust. This gave it the opportunity to develop digital tools, including a virtual tour on its website, and look at future income generation for this valued local heritage asset.
B-arts used the funding to sustain 80 freelance artists, commissioning work to keep people’s spirits up, sharing lived experience as well as delivering kits and worksheets to families, in addition to food from its waste food café during lockdown.
The Spode Museum Trust had no income during lock-down and the £20,000 DCMS grant brought the charity time to reflect while looking after the wellbeing of staff, volunteers and trustees. It looked at its audience and user markets, and used a kickstart grant to develop its website and start digitising artefacts. Online sales have provided new income and a deal with Portmeirion saw the Spode pattern produced on bone china, in the home of bone china, for the first time in many years.
Few cities are named after what they do. The Potteries are world leaders in ceramics and ceramic manufacturing, and Stoke-on-Trent has been at the heart of research and innovation for almost 300 years. The Spode site in my constituency is significant not as an historical relic, but as the focus for many creative businesses, charities, researchers, artists and innovators. The Spode works is the physical manifestation of what Stoke-on-Trent means: celebrating where we came from, talking about now and always looking forward; a place where we can stand on the past to get a better view of the future, and where arts and science are equally valued.
The common theme of these DCMS-funded projects is future-proofing our city by encouraging innovation and supporting creativity. Future funding will help to attract private investment and encourage talent and new opportunities, hopefully backed by levelling-up funding. It will enable the rebirth of this major symbol of Stoke-on-Trent’s past as a beacon for its future.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
I commence my remarks by praising the work that the BBC has done to support families and ensure that children have access to good-quality, advertising-free content during covid. All Members who are parents of young children will have appreciated the value of that, and many of us will have heard from our constituents that, at a time when access to good-quality learning, either online or through the television, radio and other forms of media, has sometimes been hard to come by, the BBC has done an absolutely fantastic job. At a time when there is often controversy about the BBC’s political news coverage, we need to recognise that benefit; a vast part of the corporation’s work is enormously valuable in supporting children and families, and it will be incredibly important not just during lockdown and covid but as we move towards education catch-up.
The second big positive is the investment that has ensured that local arts can continue to thrive. I have the privilege of representing Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, an outer London constituency, which, as well as having access to the west end—a national asset—has a number of thriving local arts centres, including Harrow Arts Centre, which benefited from direct funding, and the Compass theatre and Winston Churchill theatre and hall, which have benefited from the support of the local authority. The ability of these local arts venues not only to nurture talent, to be part of what is a great British economic success story, but to give people access to culture and the arts on their doorstep is incredibly important. The support that has been put in place by the Minister and the Department has been enormously valued by constituents. As we look towards recovery and opening up again, many artistes and organisations are delighted at the prospect of throwing their doors open again, putting on shows and exhibitions that have had to be deferred, and welcoming my constituents once more.
I will finish with a comment about youth work. The Department currently holds responsibility for the youth investment fund. Having spent many of my years as the councillor responsible for children and young people in the London borough of Hillingdon, which serves about two thirds of my constituency, I am very aware of the enrichment of young people’s lives that has been brought about by youth centres, the youth workers that local authorities employ, and those who come from organisations such as churches, charities and the uniformed sector, including the Scouts and the Guides. This creates amazing opportunities for young people that contribute to their later employability and enrich their lives and raise aspiration and opportunity. When we talk about levelling up, those things will be incredibly important.
As we look forward in this estimates day debate, I encourage the Minister to consider how we will ensure that those resources are properly applied. I ask that we give appropriate consideration to how we use the resources contained in that fund to support excellent frontline youth work, to enable local authorities to do the job that they do extremely well in supporting and engaging young people, and that we make sure that those resources are deployed in the light of local circumstances, so that those who know their communities best can ensure that they add the maximum value to the lives of young people in our areas.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) [V]
The spending of DCMS has provided vital financial support to cultural and sporting facilities throughout the pandemic, and the Chancellor’s recent Budget announcements will continue to support the sector in recovery and offer new opportunities and hope to communities such as mine in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington. The Met theatre, the East Lancs railway and the Lancashire Fusiliers museum have all received Government support, allowing them to continue their fantastic work, improving the social and economic life of Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington.
The announcement of a further £300 million to extend the culture recovery fund is most welcome and will allow cultural assets to be at the centre of the recovery from covid-19. This is the crucial point: sport, culture and heritage must be at the centre of our social and economic recovery. I speak as chair of the northern culture all-party group, and every city and town in my region has its own unique cultural offer. To take advantage of that, we need further national, regional and local investment.
I was therefore delighted with the Chancellor’s announcement of the £150 million community ownership fund. In Ramsbottom, the Co-op theatre has recently been listed by the Secretary of State. Built in the 1870s, it is one of only five in the country and still has its original interior fittings. That heritage asset has sat dormant for decades, but now, hopefully, through the efforts of local campaigners, a potential source of funding could safeguard the theatre for everyone. This Government investment would add a further layer to the deep cultural offer within Ramsbottom, which could help transform the town as we come out of restrictions, creating jobs, bringing visitors and investment to the area and improving life chances and opportunities. I hope that this type of national funding model in important community assets will be at the heart of DCMS funding going forward.
The DCMS should also take every opportunity to invest and harness the power of sport, both at grassroots and professional levels, so I welcome the sports recovery package announced in the Budget. The people of Bury, through no fault of their own, lost their professional football club, and its historic home Gigg Lane is currently dormant. Gigg Lane has, for more than 100 years, provided jobs, supported economic activity in the town and been central to Bury’s identity, and its sporting and cultural offer.
I am delighted that the Government have announced, through the community ownership fund, a means by which the site can be potentially bought for everyone in Bury. DCMS spending going forward must continue to support cultural assets, but be innovative in providing moneys for projects that unite communities. It should never be underestimated how central to the cultural, social and economic recovery of my town a thriving community-owned Gigg Lane would be. This would be the definition of building back better and levelling up.
DCMS has provided funding to enable the UK and Ireland to bid for the 2030 World cup. If successful, I truly hope that Gigg Lane will be in a position to host a match. What a cultural and sporting success story that would be both nationally and locally, and it would be testament to the moneys that this Government are investing now in the cultural and sporting sectors.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
It is a privilege to speak in today’s debate, and I thank the Government for the support that they continue to give to our cultural and entertainment sector.
I am incredibly proud of Darlington’s amazing cultural sector and my constituents who work in it. From our rich railway heritage to our vibrant artistic community, we have it all. Indeed, we look forward to showing this to the team at Her Majesty’s Treasury.
Since Locomotion No. 1 first travelled across Skerne Bridge in 1825, an event commemorated on our nation’s £5 note, Darlington has been a busy, lively town that is recognised for its unique and distinctive cultural heritage. Today, we are home to a vibrant community of artistic excellence at sites such as the Forum Music Centre and the Hippodrome, which were awarded £106,000 and £1,000,000 respectively through the culture recovery fund. Darlington is also a safe home for culture, and, in 2020, was the first in the north-east to be awarded a purple flag, an international accreditation for excellence within the night-time economy—an accreditation that was renewed for 2021.
Sadly, Darlington’s cultural sector has been badly affected, with venues unable to operate for much of the past year, which is why I welcome the phenomenal support that has been provided by the DCMS to help protect Darlington’s cultural sector.
Throughout the pandemic, culture venues have been able to access unprecedented support through the coronavirus job retention scheme, self-employment income support scheme, Government-guaranteed business loans, lockdown grants and discretionary grants. These schemes have supported businesses and protected thousands of jobs. They are in addition to the Government’s tailored support package that made £1.57 billion available through the culture recovery fund—the single largest support package for the arts in our country’s history, accessed by 3,000 organisations and directly supporting 75,000 jobs.
Last week, the Chancellor increased the support available to the culture and arts, making a further £700 million available to combat the ongoing effects of coronavirus and to support our incredible arts, cultural and sporting sector as they reopen over the coming months. This means that the departmental expenditure limit for 2020-21 that we are debating today stands at a phenomenal £4.8 billion, which I and indeed the cultural sector of Darlington warmly welcome. I am proud to be supporting the Government today.
Perhaps the greatest support that we can now give the cultural sector is a clear reassurance that the recently announced road map is irreversible and that, from later this month, we can begin to unlock, I look forward to seeing Darlington’s cultural sector reopen and our theatres, museums and cinemas begin to fill up once again.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would like to thank the Minister and his colleagues very much for all the hard work they have been putting in so far.
It is brilliant news that the Government have allocated £5 billion to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. I am particularly pleased that we will be able to see firm action to deal with some of the many difficulties we have had with broadband connectivity in rural Britain, particularly in rural West Dorset. The average download speed in West Dorset is 42.5 megabits per second, which is a little under half of the UK average. I could quote many statistics like that, but I know full well that the Minister and his colleagues have heard from me frequently about this issue, in order that we make more progress. We are dealing with a legacy of many larger businesses in this sector taking the commercial opportunity of focusing on the highest yielding areas and therefore focusing on urban areas. In many cases, that has meant a loss to those living in not just rural areas, but very rural areas, who are often in that 1%, 2% or 3% of the population who really struggle to get decent broadband.
I am working with and supporting Dorset Council very much with its broadband fibre spine programme. We need £6.5 million to deliver that. Dorset Council works hard and saves hard, which is why we are in a position locally in Dorset to fund two thirds of that. Today, I am making a plea to the Minister and his colleagues: please help us find the remaining third. It is 0.05% of that £5 billion budget. It is £2.54 million, which we in Dorset would hugely appreciate, because that will give us the turbocharge we need to get our local businesses on track, and make sure that we in rural Dorset recover properly and fully from coronavirus, which is what we need. I very much encourage the Minister to do this. I stand ready, with my colleagues in rural Dorset, to support him in whatever way we can. A few months ago, I described his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), as the knight in shining armour that we are waiting for in Dorset. I very much hope that today’s Minister will be able to join the cavalry and make sure that we get that £2.5 million to sort out Dorset fibre broadband.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) [V]
This estimates day debate is looking at the spending of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, which is often referred to as the “Ministry for Fun”. For people who make their living in these sectors, creating fun is a very serious business. Annually, the sector accounts for about £115 billion of revenue. The creative industries encompass the best and brightest of UK businesses, and these figures paint a very vibrant picture of creativity and talent in our country. This is a powerful export sector; the UK is highly regarded around the world and these businesses will play a key role in lifting the mood of the nation to aid the recovery.
Speaking from my experience as the chair of the all-party group on media, I am particularly grateful to the Secretary of State, the Minister for Media and Data, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), and the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), who is in his place, for willingly engaging and responding when I have raised issues with them over the past 12 months.
I wish to touch on digital, on media and on sport, and on how they impact my constituency. Let me start by welcoming the £16 million loan that has been provided to support rugby league, as 2021 is a particularly important year for the sport. This autumn, the UK will be hosting the rugby league world cup and towns such as Warrington will play host to international teams, giving fans a chance to back their national team. The financial benefits that the tournament will bring to the north will trickle into the wider community, helping hotels, restaurants and taxi firms in Warrington to recover. They are already starting to take bookings. I urge the Minister to continue to engage with the sport’s governing body.
There is no doubt that the Government have provided substantial support to TV production to allow the sector to restart making the TV shows that we all love to watch. The Government have also stepped in to support commercial radio and the newspaper sector with enhanced advertising campaigns, but there are other commercial sectors, particularly struggling cinemas for example. They will be some of the last businesses to reopen, and they have also lost the revenues from the pre-film ads.
In the ad creative production sector, the writers, producers and artists who appear in commercials have all been affected. I heard today from the Advertising Association that different sectors from the advertising world have had a 20% to 40% fall in their annual turnover. Local advertising revenues have been particularly badly hit, given the nature of that type of advertising and the fundamental change that is happening in the sector.
I will add a word of caution on the future impact of proposed legislation on products in the high in fat, salt and sugar sector, and the pace of implementation of legislation. I encourage Ministers to engage more with the sector, because the opportunity to use the media to change behaviour through positive campaigns is a better way of tackling obesity than just implementing a ban on advertising, which ultimately producers will seek to find a way round.
Better digital connectivity is fundamental for our economic growth and levelling up. I have been working with local residents and Openreach to develop a community fibre partnership, which will bring better broadband to around 100 homes in Higher Walton. I am keen to get new fibre cables in the ground in the coming weeks, so will the Minister confirm that the current scheme, which is due to finish at the end of March and which supports rural roll-out of fibre broadband, will be replaced so that the efforts can continue, because I have more projects to complete?
It is businesses in the digital, culture, media and sport sector that will help to drive our post-pandemic recovery. I encourage the Chancellor and the Secretary of State to continue to give the sector the serious support that it needs and deserves.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
On 26 March, with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) and the family, I will launch the campaign for a memorial to commemorate the wonderful Dame Vera Lynn together with Sir Paul McCartney, Katherine Jenkins and Sir Tim Rice. Funding will be by public subscription and donations, and it is planned that the memorial will be sited on the white cliffs of Dover.
There are some wonderful local charities that perform a vital service for our communities that deserve financial support, such as Age UK and the Music Man project in my constituency. I am, however, disappointed that the Chancellor’s Budget did not offer specific assistance to the sector, and I encourage the Department, which works closely with the Charity Commission, to resolve that. I thank the Minister for the support that he gave recently to the Showmen’s Guild and fairgrounds generally. I urge him to keep that up. Also, could he support our wonderful zoos and all the people involved in animal welfare and rescue generally?
I raised the issue of support for the events and creative industries only last week, but it is becoming increasingly relevant since the Chancellor’s Budget. There are still individuals, businesses, limited company directors and freelancers who are excluded and need financial support. Businesses in Southend look forward to welcoming tourists back to our town this summer. I very much welcome the decision to extend the VAT cut for the tourism and hospitality sector, and I hope that the Government will continue to support those businesses as they prepare to reopen.
Working from home has really highlighted to me how poor the internet is in my constituency. In our manifesto, we pledged for full-fibre and gigabit-capable broadband for every home and business across the United Kingdom by 2025, so when will that come to Southend West? After the dreadful year that we had, the nation needs cheering up, and the best way that we can do that is to organise the city status competition and make Southend a city, so can we please get on with the announcement? I am very pleased that the Government are providing a further £300 million for the culture recovery fund. There are a number of fantastic cultural organisations in Southend, which I hope will benefit from this extension.
Oh dear. Southend United are not having a brilliant time at the moment; we languish at 23rd in the league, although—fingers crossed—I hope we beat Stevenage at the weekend. I hope that Southend West gets its fair share of the £300 million recovery package for professional sport and £25 million for grassroots football. I was one of the original pioneers of the national lottery, but we are always in the bottom 10 or 20, and last year we received only £59,000. That is ridiculous. Some £200 million was awarded; we are not getting our fair share in Southend West. The BBC continues to pay its stars—I use the term loosely—vast sums of money at a time when so many of my constituents are struggling with pay freezes or having lost their jobs. That is unacceptable. I urge the Department to bear that in mind when it comes to the next charter renewal.
Finally, Her Majesty the Queen is having a tough time at the moment. She has served her country so well for 70 years, and a statue would be a fitting tribute to our great monarch. Her grace, compassion and dedication to duty during her reign has made this country the envy of the world. Thank goodness we have a monarch rather than a president.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. The work of DCMS is wide-ranging, and I am conscious of the considerable support that it has given by way of covid recovery funding—both its first tranche and the money announced in the Budget—to a wide range of sectors. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I want to start by talking about the theatre and performing arts sector—not for the first time, and I make no apology for that. Not only do they contribute so much to our economy, but they also, of course, enrich our lives and entertain as well as broaden and inform. The work that has been done is significant, and I pay particular tribute to the money—some £435,500—that was made available to the Churchill theatre in my constituency, which has been valuable in keeping that much-loved and long-established institution going.
I am also conscious of the need for small-scale grants, and I pay tribute as well to Bromley Little theatre, which has just received a grant from the Theatres Trust to improve its ventilation so that it is able to open, in due course, in covid-compliant fashion. It is a community theatre run by volunteers, and it is amazing the way its members have kept online content, recorded in a socially distant fashion, up on its website to keep its enthusiastic audiences engaged with live theatre and the magic and value that that brings us. They deserve not only our thanks and praise but our practical support.
But of course there are still issues that need to be addressed. I have a significant number of constituents who work in the performing arts and related sectors, be they actors in the west end, sound technicians, set designers or theatre producers. As the Minister knows, many of them are freelancers—they are overwhelmingly self-employed—and, frankly, many have fallen through gaps in the support that is available.
I will cite just one example—a constituent of mine who has been a successful freelance theatre production manager for 30 years. Because his salary was over £50,000 on a self-employed basis, he has not been getting any support, whereas if he were salaried, he would be in a very different and more advantageous position. He does not have the option of being salaried; that is not the nature of the work that people in the creative sector do. I am not convinced that the Treasury understands that. The consequence is that this dedicated and successful professional has earned some £4,000 in the last year. It is not possible to expect people to carry on with their overheads in that situation, so I hope that we will look again at the way that this is dealt with.
I hope, too, that we can look at greater transparency in the way in which grants are awarded. They are very welcome, but I have an example of a business in my constituency that was rejected on diversity and cultural significance grounds by a panel, but no reasoning was given for the panel’s decision, and there is no means of appeal. One then comes across other businesses of exactly the same kind that have been successful. If we are going to continue with the support—and I very much welcome the fact that we are—it is all the more important that there is proper transparency.
Finally, I am using my internet connection to speak from Chislehurst, but the reality is that many parts of my constituency have a remarkably poor internet connection. Only 4.7% of my constituency has gigabit availability—the London average is 21%—but it is within 10 miles of London. Rolling out broadband has to be made a reality right across the country, including the suburbs.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) for securing the debate and Members across the House for their contributions so far. How we have all missed culture and sport, which are the very heartbeat of our national life and which have been put on ice by this grim pandemic. I know that other Members ache, like me, to hear the roar of a crowd at a gig, to sit lost in music at a concert, to explore again their favourite museums and galleries and, of course, to celebrate Scotland’s victory on 18 June over England in the Euros group stage.
Cheering alone will not heal the deep wounds inflicted on the sector by both covid and Brexit. The damage that has been done is deep. Research by Oxford Economics estimates that covid has led to a £74 billion revenue drop in this sector alone, and the Creative Industries Federation has warned that one fifth of the creative sector—that is more than 400,000 people—either have lost or are in immediate danger of losing their jobs. Few enter the arts because they want to be rich. They do it for love, but even for those who had solid careers before the pandemic, there have been sleepless nights wondering how the next bill will be paid.
The Department’s brief is broad, but as a member of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I have heard the evidence in recent months, and some key themes have emerged. Festivals—one of the UK’s most thriving sectors—are in crisis. Until the pandemic, festivals brought over £1 billion into our economy. They not only showcase domestic talent and make these islands a cultural beacon in the summer, but they employ half a million people. Scotland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) so eloquently highlighted, plays host to the largest arts festival in the world: the Edinburgh festival.
However, when the industry begged the UK Government to underwrite the insurance needed to plan gigs, concerts and festivals, it was denied. That was a key factor in the cancellation of Glastonbury festival, among others. Some festivals are going ahead this summer, but many festivals that could have gone ahead are not doing so. They could not take the risk without insurance, and they could not get insurance because of the pandemic. They needed Government intervention, but the UK Government turned their back.
Artists and musicians do not ask for much from Government, but they do expect that the Government will not work actively against them. Many will now be forced to change career, causing irreparable damage to the sector. That applies in particular to freelancers, who have slipped through the net, unable to fit the criteria for support. Equity, the actors’ union, has found that 40% of its members have received no help of any kind from the self-employment income support scheme.
The cultural sector has suffered the harshest economic blow from this pandemic, second only to those working in the hospitality and tourism sectors. Luckily for those living in Scotland, the Scottish Government at Holyrood have been able to pledge £30 million to mitigate the financial challenges for those who are unable to access the UK Government’s self-employment income support scheme, and in the current financial year they have committed to spending £177 million on investing in a diverse culture sector in Scotland—small comfort for those living in England, I know.
For many in the industry, there lies another long-term threat. I know that my friends on the Labour Benches are hesitant when it comes to talking about Brexit these days, and I understand why—after all, they voted for the disastrous Tory Brexit deal. However, Brexit’s impact on the sector will be not a one-off blow like the pandemic; rather, it will be a slow rot of our cultural institutions. It will come in the form of reduced funding for the arts; fewer opportunities to live, travel, work and learn in Europe; and a seeping insular mentality that is the very antithesis of cultural co-operation.
“Taking back control” was the Brexiteers’ cynical catchphrase; well, we have seen how much control the UK Government offer to artists. Last spring they could tour throughout Europe visa-free, but then the UK Government’s crack negotiating team got to work, and now orchestras, groups and soloists will have to pay €600 per member per night to play in Spain, and €500 in Italy—the price of a visa. Many have written to me to tell me that they have never earned that amount for a one-night gig, so they cannot afford to fork out a fortune for a visa.
When she appeared before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee recently, the Minister for Digital and Culture, the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) seemed blithely unaware of any of the detail—the Marie Antoinette of Brexit—although she was able to tell us that no negotiations are going on with any of the EU countries to rescue artists from this mess. She did, however, promise that she was “straining every sinew”—doing what was not entirely clear. The DCMS seems to be the most toothless Department in Government, utterly incapable of scoring any victories against No. 10 philistinism on the European front. It is high time that those strained sinews delivered. We need urgent bilateral talks with European Governments to allow touring to resume there and artists to tour here as well. Those artists are the lifeblood of festivals.
Scotland voted to remain in Europe by a huge margin, and with independence we will rejoin, but until then we want to remain in cross-border cultural initiatives such as Creative Europe and Erasmus. Northern Ireland, protected by the Republic of Ireland, will remain in Erasmus; Scotland, undermined by Westminster, will not. Look at what we will lose. Creative Europe has been a critical funding stream for arts and culture organisations across these islands. Its media and culture programmes provided more than €100 million of direct funding to the UK over the past seven years. Erasmus has been a truly remarkable gift—what student would not want to be able to travel freely and study in 27 other countries? Now, our young people cannot access the scheme to travel throughout the EU and EU students cannot travel here—yet more Brexit insularity. Of course, mid oven-ready turkey roast, the Prime Minister promised us that there would be “no threat” to the UK’s participation in the Erasmus scheme. He guaranteed that we would remain in it. If only he had put it on the side of a bus, we would all be safe, all would have been well and the promise would have been honoured.
When she appeared before the DCMS Committee, I asked the Minister for Digital and Culture whether she would do her utmost to support Scotland’s continued participation in Erasmus and deliver for Scotland what the Dáil in Ireland has delivered for Northern Ireland. Her answer? She said, “I really cannot comment”. If we are to be dragged out of these cross-border cultural initiatives against our will, the very least that the UK Government can do is to provide adequate alternatives. Intercultural relations and student exchanges are about much more than money, and the role of the arts and culture in securing and maintaining the long peace in Europe is significant and irrefutable.
We are here today to talk about money, yet we have heard nothing from DCMS of what will replace Creative Europe’s culture programme. The Department’s screen fund is worth only half its European predecessor. It is clear that the screen industry is being short-changed by Brexit. What about the UK’s promised replacement for Erasmus, the Turing scheme? As the Member who introduced the Turing Bill—the Sexual Offences (Pardons Etc.) Bill—with promised Government backing, only to see Tory Ministers filibuster it, I am surprised that the Prime Minister has the gall to use Alan Turing’s name, but then I could say, “I am surprised that the Prime Minister has the gall” and apply it to countless situations. Let us just say that the Turing scheme would be better called the “mirage” scheme: it is scarcely visible on the horizon and I am not convinced that we will ever get there.
We all know that the work of this Department extends beyond culture and sport, with digital being an important factor in our increasingly online world. We know that the gigabit roll-out is not the only building work the Prime Minister is undertaking, but, sadly, Tory donors will not be paying for this one. The pandemic has shown how essential good broadband is for so many people across the country. The 2019 Tory manifesto managed to shave eight years from the previous gigabit commitment of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), promising the electorate the utterly undeliverable. They later reduced the target from 100% full fibre to 85% with gigabit capable broadband, adding digital infrastructure to the long list of over-promising and under-delivering by the Government.
This has been a uniquely challenging year for all sectors within the Department. The actions needed for recovery are clear, and I would urge the Minister to heed them.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have taken part in the debate so far, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). Let me praise the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight)—he is a Chester lad, of course—for his introduction, which I thought touched on so many of the issues.
We have heard from Members across the House that the creative, culture and tourist industries have been some of the worst hit by the pandemic. Tourism and the rich cultural scene that Britain has to offer will be a crucial part not only of our economic recovery, but of the recovery of our mental health and wellbeing, yet the Government have still failed to meet their promise to do “whatever it takes” to support these sectors fully. Throughout the pandemic, this Government have been the masters of self-promotion, with grand announcements that in reality fall short of the supply needed or of what was initially promised. Too often the funds allocated have not reached the businesses or people that need them the most. The Chair of the Select Committee hinted that his Committee might be looking at that in future.
There are some aspects of the Government’s support schemes that we welcomed. For example, we welcomed efforts to support the print media through Government advertising, even if the adverts themselves were too party political, often featuring pictures of the Chancellor —no surprise there—and even if not enough effort was made to get the financial support through to smaller, local and independent news outlets. Similarly, we welcomed support for the commercial radio stations during the pandemic, which also saw advertising revenues collapse. Again, more of that money might have gone to the genuine independent local stations, but we will not be too critical.
We know, for example, that the Government’s insurance support scheme has assisted film and TV production to get back under way, and we welcome that. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West talked about insurance for live music, and he was echoed by the hon. Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and for Winchester (Steve Brine), who talked about festivals. Again, I pay tribute to the Minister for Media and Data, who is not in his place today, for his work, both when he was out of government and now back in office, on journalistic freedom and the protection of journalists. It is just a shame that the Prime Minister and other Ministers have spoken so disparagingly of journalists in recent weeks.
Of course, we welcome the culture recovery fund as far as it goes, with the usual criticism that by and large it supports buildings, not people. Did you notice, Madam Deputy Speaker, how last week’s CRF announcement, preceding the Budget of course—let us face it, most of the Budget preceded the actual Budget announcement—included a whole host of endorsements from leading institutions in the cultural sector? Surely each one was entirely spontaneous! Surely they were not all co-ordinated by Tory Ministers! It was almost as if these institutions had been lined up and told to sign off and provide a supportive quote in order to get the CRF money from the Government and the Chancellor, because for him it is all in the presentation.
Talking of presentation, last week my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) remarked on the Chancellor’s commitments to the creative sector in a notable contribution reflecting on his talents for self-promotion, and who could blame the Chancellor for wanting to hide reality behind flash presentation when that reality is a miserable, below-inflation, 1% pay rise for NHS nurses? Today, we can add another artistic string to the Chancellor’s bow—acting. His Oscar-winning performance clapping for the NHS outside 11 Downing Street may have hoodwinked many at the time, but the reality is now out in the open. It was all for show, and no BAFTA-winning acting performance will cover up such a level of misdirection and misappropriation. People are seeing through it.
Of course, the extension to the culture recovery fund is welcome. However, we must remember that these sectors are not just heritage buildings and historic theatres; behind each building, there are hundreds of jobs that need saving, and some of these individuals have not seen any income since the beginning of the pandemic. I spoke recently to one BAFTA-winning filmmaker who, in her own words, was ready to “throw in the towel” and leave the sector because of a lack of income.
Almost a year on from the beginning of the first national lockdown, and even with the Government’s slight adjustment from the Budget last week, millions of self-employed people across the country remain excluded from any Government support schemes. A big number of them work within the creative sectors. That is a whole year without the work that they love; a year of uncertainty and struggles with mental health; a year of not knowing what, or when, their next job is going to be; and a year of being ignored by the Government. Hon. Members across the House have referred to this in today’s debate, including the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Solihull, and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).
I commend the freelancers’ charter and the news recovery plan, both produced by the National Union of Journalists, and ask that Ministers take on board what the NUJ has proposed; my hon. Friend the Member for Easington made reference to that. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West talked about the importance of supporting freelance musicians, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) referred to the work that Equity has done on supporting actors in getting back to work.
Britain has some of the best culture and tourism that the world has to offer. We need the creative and cultural sector to recover and grow our economy. As a whole, DCMS businesses, excluding tourism, contributed £224 billion to the UK in 2018. A s the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) said, we would not have an NHS without our cultural funds, which make up 12% of the economy. Creative businesses’ exports are worth £36 billion worldwide, up 7.5% on the previous year, meaning that growth is five times that of the British economy as a whole. More importantly, after we have been starved of so much of what the creative industries have to offer for over a year, the creative sector will be a big part of the recovery of the nation’s wellbeing.
There is nothing in these estimates to make up for the terrible Brexit deal that the Government have imposed on the cultural sectors. I am going to have to contradict my good friend, the spokesman for the SNP, the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson): I am quite happy to talk about the Government’s failures on their own Brexit deal. With that disastrous deal, the Government have all but curtailed touring in the EU by UK performers and artists and their support crews, and likewise for EU artists and performers who want to come here, as the Chair of the Select Committee referred to. It reduces our artists’ opportunity to work and earn abroad, and it also reduces the chance to promote British artistic values and achievement abroad, but it seems this Government care nothing for promoting Britain and British culture abroad. As is always the case with the Government, it is hard-line, crackpot Brexit ideology first, everything else second, regardless of the human and economic cost—mislead the British public and try, as usual, to blame the EU for everything. The British public are starting to see through their failings and half-truths as the reality of the hard Brexit—or, as some hon. Members suggested, no-deal Brexit—in the creative sectors starts to bite. As the pandemic eases, that awful reality will become only more evident.
The Minister has been personally supportive when he has engaged with me on sporting matters relating to my constituency. Other hon. Members have also said that they have been able to engage with him, and I pay tribute to him for that. Of course, we are still waiting for the much-promised fan-led review of football, and we want to see the national plan for wellbeing, including participation in sport. As we come out of the pandemic, we need to fast-track measures to get people involved in grassroots sport for their physical and mental health, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) has referred to.
On digital, we know that the Government are lagging behind in their efforts to roll out fibre broadband. Ofcom has reported that adults are spending an average of four hours a day online, the highest number on record, and the number of adults using video calling software has doubled—don’t we all know it, Madam Deputy Speaker? Hon. Members from across the House have talked about the lack of decent broadband in their areas: the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), whose constituency is in a rural area, the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), and my next-door neighbour the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson), who knows rural Cheshire very well, have all mentioned this issue.
The shift online has emphasised the digital divide that exists in our country, which is not just geographic. There are 1.9 million households with no access to the internet, and tens of millions more reliant on pay-as-you-go services to make calls and access healthcare, education and benefits online. This divide has led to children having to do their homework in fast food restaurants in order to access wi-fi, and parents having to choose between buying data or food. Meanwhile, we await the Government’s online safety Bill, which still will not tackle the dominance of big tech companies. We have seen the Secretary of State being pushed around by Sir Nick Clegg and Facebook, refusing to include a firm commitment to director-level responsibility in the online safety Bill and then, like a playground weakling, only piling in against big tech when most of the hard work to challenge the power of online media had already been done by Australia. There is still no commitment to work with Governments across the world to rein in this antidemocratic transnational force, which also damages our domestic media, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington suggested.
Charities have suffered greatly during the pandemic. The charity deficit for this financial year is expected to exceed £10 billion, with the sector predicting 60,000 job losses. Despite a funding package announced last April, many in the sector are still struggling, with the second lockdown likely to hit fundraising opportunities. Charities deliver so many of our public services and they must be supported while restrictions continue, but it seems that the only interest that the Government have in our charitable sector is as a mechanism for the Prime Minister getting somebody else to pay for his new kitchen and wallpaper.
Talking of charities, let us not forget Age Concern’s advice about loneliness being exacerbated by the Government’s decision to remove the free TV licence for the over-75s. The Government are still hiding behind the BBC, too craven and dishonest to stand up and justify their own policy. But they are responsible for removing the TV licences, not the BBC. I had hoped that there would be something in the Budget and in these estimates to make good this Tory betrayal of pensioners, but sadly not.
Throughout the pandemic, there seems to be a clear pattern emerging of big announcements and promises of funding that for one reason or another does not reach the businesses or the people that need it. Making announcements is not enough to save the cultural and creative businesses, especially the many self-employed and freelance people who work in our cultural economy, as hon. Members across the House have mentioned in the debate.
Although the extensions and promises of funding are welcome, the Government must look at this again to ensure that DCMS businesses and people in those sectors are properly supported. Without them, our recovery from the pandemic will be very bleak. People want life after the pandemic, and that life is provided by the creative and cultural sector. Let us hope that it is still there to breathe life back into our society when we put the pandemic behind us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
It is a pleasure to respond on the Government’s behalf to this important debate, which comes at the end of a hugely challenging year for all the sectors mentioned today.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) for securing the debate, and pay tribute to him and the members of the Select Committee, from all parties, for conducting the review that forms the basis of the debate and provides such informed evidence and recommendations. I appreciate, even if I do not completely agree with, the comments made by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), with whom I spent many years on the Select Committee. I have many fond memories of that, and I absolutely understand the passion Committee members have for these sectors, which is shared across the House. We have seen that today.
The passion shown today is a demonstration of how important the digital, culture, media and sports sectors are, not just for our economy and our heritage, but for our wellbeing as a nation. At a time of incredible hardship for many, so often a book, music, a sports game or a TV programme has provided some welcome respite from the destruction and disruption caused by the pandemic. We have heard passionate speeches today from hon. Members on both sides of the House highlighting what we already know: that as well as making a huge economic contribution, DCMS sectors enrich our lives and make them more fulfilling. In many ways, they make life worth living, and we should never forget that.
Many Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Clacton (Giles Watling) and for Warrington South (Andy Carter), have highlighted the vast contribution DCMS sectors make to the economy, with £116 billion from the creative industries, £75 billion from tourism and £151 billion from digital, and the millions of jobs sustained by those sectors. Before I discuss the sector-specific support, I will touch on the pan-economic and multi-sector schemes that have illustrated the Government’s resolve to do whatever it takes to see organisations and businesses through the pandemic.
As many hon. Members have highlighted, the Chancellor, in his Budget speech last week, announced the extension of the furlough scheme until the end of September, which is hugely welcomed across our DCMS sectors and will help to not only secure jobs but enable planning and reopening. Our sectors have many self-employed people and freelancers, as many hon. Members have mentioned today. I am keenly aware of the financial need in which many have found themselves. The Chancellor extended the self-employment income support scheme, and an additional 600,000 people can now access this support, on top of the 67% of the self-employed who have already received assistance. More than 70,000 freelancers in the arts and entertainment sector have received money via this scheme. In addition, Arts Council England has awarded £51 million to thousands of individuals needing support.
Let me turn to other measures. There is obviously the new recovery loan scheme to replace the existing schemes, and the Budget included an enhanced support package for leisure and hospitality businesses that must remain closed until step 3, with restart grants worth up to £18,000 per premises. The Chancellor also announced that the business rates holiday for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in England has been extended by an additional three months, and the Government have extended the temporary 5% reduced rate of VAT on hospitality and tourism. This VAT cut alone is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility to be worth about £4.7 billion for hospitality, tourism and visitor attractions.
Many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), the hon. Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), and many others, have mentioned tourism. The tourism sector has been hit particularly hard by the pandemic. It has therefore, quite rightly, particularly benefited from the pan-economy measures such as the furlough scheme and loan scheme, as well as being targeted for grant support, business rates relief, VAT reduction and so on—and justifiably so, as tourism is a major UK industry.
Inbound tourism is one of our biggest export earners, contributing over £75 billion in GVA to the economy and sustaining millions of jobs. Over the last year, we estimate that over £25 billion has been spent on supporting tourism, hospitality and leisure through a combination of grants, loans and tax breaks. This level of investment demonstrates the huge value that these sectors provide—not only to our economy, but to our quality of life.
As Tourism Minister, I am keenly aware just how much people are looking forward to taking a holiday and visiting some of our world-class and world-famous visitor attractions—including myself. By “including myself”, I mean that I look forward to visiting the attractions, rather than that I am a world-class visitor attraction, as much as I would appreciate that! In the spring, we will go further by publishing a tourism recovery plan that sets out our ambitious vision for the sector. I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire, and we will work with colleagues across the House.
In have spoken about the £65 billion of measures announced on top of the £353 billion announced last week. Let me now focus on some sector-specific measures. Many hon. Members have mentioned the culture recovery fund, and I appreciate that many Opposition Members have welcomed that. Over £1 billion of culture recovery fund money has already been allocated to over 3,800 arts, heritage and cultural organisations up and down the country, helping to support 75,000 jobs. That is important.
We have heard a little bit of a tone today that it is all about protecting buildings; far from it. The money is being spent to sustain jobs and to help, in many areas, quite niche skills that are otherwise in danger of disappearing. My hon. Friends the Members for Clacton, for Darlington (Peter Gibson), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) and others have highlighted this. For example, £170 million has been awarded to over 690 music organisations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South mentioned, more than 200 independent cinemas have received money, from Penrith to Penzance. Many museums have also received money.
Although the exact scope for the CRF extension is yet to be announced, as with the original fund, the money will go to heritage and cultural organisations that require support to transition back to operating fully. It is absolutely the intention that entities that perhaps have not received money so far should and could be eligible for further CRF money.
Many hon. Members have mentioned film and TV. As a result of Government support—most notably, the £500 million film and tv restart scheme—this sector has bounced back, with a production spend this quarter of £2.8 billion, which is the second highest on record. The Chancellor announced an extension of this scheme to 31 December 2021.
Many hon. Members also mentioned visiting a museum, watching a play, listening to live music and, indeed, going to a live event, which we are all looking forward to doing again. With regard to the events industry, including the music events industry, we are in regular dialogue with the sector and all stakeholders. We are looking to resume these events as part of step 4 of the road map. As set out in the road map, the events research programme will explore when and how music festivals and other events can return without social distancing and restrictive capacity capped. Subject to the outcome of that work, and other reviews, we hope to set out how festivals and other large events can safely go ahead with appropriate mitigations in place. I know that this is a particular passion of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) and many others.
A related issue was then raised by many hon. Members about insurance. We are very aware of the concerns that have been raised about the challenges of securing indemnity cover for live events, and my officials have been working closely with the affected sectors to understand all barriers to reopening, including, of course, challenges around indemnity cover and insurance. The bar for considering Government intervention is extremely high, especially in the light of other support measures, including the extension of the furlough scheme and other business support. None the less, I certainly hear what hon. Members are saying today and so do others.
Sport was mentioned by many hon. Members, including, as always, my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (James Daly), for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) and for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). We know that sport and physical activity are crucial to our mental and physical health. That is why we have continued to make sure that people can exercise throughout the national restrictions and that grassroots and children’s sport are absolutely at the front of the queue when easing begins later this month. As well as ensuring that restrictions allow for people to take regular exercise, central to our efforts to help sport has been the £300 million sports winter survival package, which was extended in an additional announcement just last week. That is on top of £220 million funding provided by Sport England, which, again, has been widely distributed.
Hon. Members mentioned many more topics today, but I am afraid that time does not permit me to answer all of them, much as I would love to. None the less, I really appreciate the volume and variety of comments today. Broadband was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for West Dorset (Chris Loder), for Eddisbury and others. I can assure Members of this House that they are, indeed, doughty campaigners for their constituents who constantly lobby not only the knight in shining armour, as I think the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) was called, but many others. The Government want to become a world leader in connectivity and increase the UK’s productivity and competitiveness by doing so. We have set ambitious targets for gigabit-capable broadband, and, of course, we will continue with other measures.
Superfast broadband coverage has already reached 97%—one of the highest numbers in Europe. By the end of 2021, we expect that more than half the country will be connected to gigabit-capable networks. By 2025, the Government are targeting a minimum of 85% gigabit-capable coverage, but will seek to accelerate that further and get as close to 100% as possible.
Touring was mentioned by many colleagues. It is important to say that British artists can still tour and perform in the EU, but we pushed for more ambitious arrangements for artists to be able to work across Europe. Our proposals would have allowed artists to travel and perform in the UK and the EU more easily without needing work permits, but these were developed in consultation with the UK’s creative industries and were rejected by the EU. We are now working urgently across Government and in collaboration with the creative industries, including through a new working group, to help address these issues so that touring in Europe can resume as soon as possible.
In conclusion, I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that I cannot wait to have our theatres, our sports, our events, our festivals—quite frankly, life as we knew it—back; as soon as possible. As the Chancellor told the House last week, the Government stand ready to do whatever it takes to help the country and our economy to recover from the disruption of coronavirus.
The Select Committee’s report was a welcome and constructive contribution to that debate. Indeed, this debate has also been extremely constructive. We will continue to use the data and information provided by stakeholders and many of us to shape our approach to providing assistance to the hugely important DCMS sectors and to help them plan for reopening as soon as it is safe to do so, which, thankfully, will be very soon.
Julian Knight [V]
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. We have seen, writ large, the vital role that DCMS sectors play in all our constituencies the length and breadth of the country. I thank the Minister for his warm words, and for his ongoing commitment and that of his fellow Ministers and their advisers. I wish, however, that there was Treasury representation right now on the Treasury Bench, because, as we all know, and as has been highlighted by my Committee, DCMS is the most beholden of all Departments to the Treasury.
Obviously, the cultural recovery fund is very welcome, but the time for backslapping has now stopped—we need to refocus. Insurance will allow our live events to trade, not aid. The Minister made reference to the film and TV recovery plan and the insurance there, which, for me, is an example of why this is needed. We need pilots up and running for live events in double-quick time, and we need a root-and-branch review of tourism, as outlined, but with proper investment to follow. We need to get on and negotiate with our partners across the EU on EU visa arrangements and access for our creative industries. There is really no time to lose.
Above all else today, we need to understand a very simple thing: the DCMS sectors, and those who work within them, are not mendicants, forever holding out their hands; they are entrepreneurial and they are actually what we do best.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will briefly suspend the House for three minutes in order that arrangements can be made for the next debate.
COP26
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment in the name of Bell Ribeiro-Addy.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2021, for expenditure by the Cabinet Office:
(1) further resources, not exceeding £975,392,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1227,
(2) further resources, not exceeding £76,060,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
(3) a further sum, not exceeding £798,643,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
May I begin by congratulating you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your increasingly iconic videos on Twitter, which, with a lower budget, provide more charm than the Chancellor’s glitzy versions on Instagram?
Five years ago, the Paris agreement committed the world to limiting global warming to at least 2° C above pre-industrial levels but called on all of us to get as close to 1.5° C as possible. The recent announcements on net zero from the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union, China and others mean that we are within striking distance of reaching that Paris target. According to the Climate Action Tracker, the net zero targets that have been pledged so far could limit global warming to 2.1° C above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100. That builds in the announcements from China, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, South Korea and others. But those welcome announcements need to be translated into updated nationally determined contributions—NDCs—that need to be submitted to the UN before COP26 and, crucially, into deliverable climate action plans.
Unfortunately, the UN’s NDC synthesis report last month raised concerns instead of hopes. As at 31 December, only 75 parties to the Paris agreement had submitted their NDCs, representing 30% of global emissions. Whereas the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends that we cut global emissions by 45% by 2030 compared with 2010 levels in order to limit temperature growth to 1.5° C, the NDCs submitted so far only get us to 1% of that 45% recommendation. Only two of the 18 largest emitters had submitted updated NDCs at the end of 2020, including the United Kingdom and the European Union. Of the NDCs that have been submitted, the UN notes a significant gap between longer-term carbon neutrality target announcements and commitments set out in the NDCs.
The crucial and urgent task for COP26 is therefore to bridge the gap between rhetoric and reality and to bring every nation with us on the route to achieving our Paris targets. This highlights the urgent need for a full Government response, especially a diplomatic response. China, for example, has committed to achieving net zero by 2060—an important and welcome commitment—but its recent five-year plan pushed the difficult and expensive decisions into the long grass. We should not get to COP26 and just tell big emitters such as China, India or others that they are not moving away from coal quickly enough, for example, not least when we are planning our own new coalmine here in the UK. Instead, we should have British diplomats in Beijing, Delhi and other capitals asking, “What can the world do to help you move away from coal more quickly?”
Here in the United Kingdom, we have legislated for net zero by 2050. The trouble is that, increasingly, we seem to be going off track at home. Yes, we were world leaders in legislating for net zero by 2050, and we have submitted a bold and welcome NDC, but the Public Accounts Committee last week concluded that there is no credible Government plan for how we deliver on those pledges. Yes, we have the energy White Paper, but where is the net zero spending review or the net zero strategy? In the new plan for growth, which replaced the scrapped industrial strategy last week via a footnote in the Budget, the horizon scan of Government announcements on our net zero transition did not even include the net zero spending review. The Government, we understand, are planning to reduce air passenger duty on short flights within the United Kingdom. They have U-turned on the vital green homes grant initiative, withdrawing a billion pounds of funding. The Budget last week made little mention of the so-called green industrial revolution.
On heating, which we are considering on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, we have enormous challenges ahead of us. It is the second largest emitter of carbon in the UK after surface transport, yet we have not made sufficient progress in understanding how we insulate people’s homes and also heat them without burning gas in the future. As the citizens’ assembly on climate change concluded, as led by my Select Committee and five others in the House, the public expect us to be making sufficient progress and taking the difficult decisions to reach our net zero target.
The fact is—I believe we all know this—the longer we leave this, the more difficult and expensive it becomes. I do not know how long I will be in this House, but as a Member who is, dare I say, on the younger side of the bell curve, I will be quite frankly furious if Ministers around the world, let alone in my own country, delegate the difficult work to the next generation, not least because it will be too late. It is therefore vital that we make progress at home and abroad and that we get on with that important work now. That means we need more than just a letter from the Foreign Secretary and the permanent secretary asking diplomatic missions to prioritise this work. It needs dedicated climate diplomats working within each country—diplomats who can listen and report back on the concerns or obstacles faced by leaders in reaching their required contributions to limiting global temperature growth.
Only by doing that work well in advance of COP26 in November can we anticipate and respond adequately to the needs of each nation. If we fail to do so, and countries come to Glasgow in November with real concerns—whether on climate aid, the balance between wealthy and less wealthy nations or the commitments from big emitters—we risk repeating the mistakes of the Copenhagen summit, with unresolved tensions being managed during COP itself and ultimately ending in failure.
In our recent interim report on COP26 and net zero, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee expressed concerns about the lack of focus on the necessity of submitting these updated nationally determined contributions and climate action plans, and also on the potential lack of support from the machinery of government in delivering on COP26.
The CEO of the COP26 unit, Peter Hill, confirmed that there are around 160 staff within the COP26 unit, which sits in the Cabinet Office. This unit is funded to the tune of £216 million through departmental transfers from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Department for Transport and others, and that is in addition to the £180 million allocated for security, representing the fact that the COP26 conference in Glasgow will be one of the largest police operations in British history. I am sure there must be more dedicated resources, especially in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, for this important work, and I hope that the COP26 President will set that out for the House today.
Lastly, we need urgent clarity on how COP26 itself will work in practice. I support the COP26 President’s aim of having an in-person summit and agree that that is the best way of illustrating equality between all nations around the decision-making table, but COP26 is not just for Heads of State and Ministers and officials. Some countries bring very large delegations; others bring smaller delegations. Can the COP26 President update the House on what the UK delegation will be and who will be included in it? There is also a great deal of wider engagement at COP, from business leaders and parliamentarians to civil society and non-governmental organisations. That usually means a large conference-style event. Indeed, the Government have said that COP26 will be the largest summit the UK has ever hosted, with 30,000 delegates, but that statement was, I think, made before covid.
I have raised the issue in COP26 questions, but it is now urgent to get clarity for delegations and the wider group of COP26 attendees about how online engagement will work if they are unable to attend in person, and how it will be determined whether delegates or other visitors are able to attend in person. The COP26 President may wish to update the House today on how the Government intend to provide, if necessary, covid vaccinations, testing and quarantine services for those physically participating in Glasgow. Indeed, concerns have been expressed by many, including me, that many nations, especially developing nations, are further behind in the roll-out of their own covid vaccinations. What steps can either the UK or UNFCCC take to ensure that the delegates are vaccinated and able to take part physically during COP in Glasgow in November?
There is cross-party support for Britain’s leadership of COP26, because it is a crucial milestone. The world needs to step up. It needs to set up credible, costed and deliverable climate action plans that get us to the targets we all agreed in Paris five years ago. Those often difficult decisions cannot be pushed into the long grass and left for future generations of leaders to deal with. If that happens, it will be not just a failure of politics, but a failure of humanity, because our planet will be unrecognisable compared with today if we fail in this task.
Climate migration following huge swathes of land around the equator turning into desert will pose a challenge to countries in the northern hemisphere and other parts of the world like never before. Difficult issues, such as the future management of Antarctica, will become live issues as potentially habitable land becomes available, while other habitable land is lost. Shortages of food, water and energy in the face of dramatic geopolitical changes and new national security threats will make covid look like a minor problem. In that context, and with that sense of urgency, while I welcome the commitment to net zero that will get us near the Paris target, we have to see deliverable climate action plans lodged at COP26, with countries’ leaders taking the difficult decisions and bringing forward investment—including climate aid from wealthy nations—to show the world that we take this issue seriously not just in rhetoric but in reality.
We want the COP26 President and his team to be successful in delivering the required outcomes. All of us in this House, I am sure, support him in those endeavours, but we also want to be assured that the Prime Minister and his Government are fully getting behind the COP team so that, come November, we will be celebrating the success of COP26, not mourning its failure in the face of climate disaster.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for opening the debate and for his extremely unexpected but very kind remarks.
It will come as a great surprise to everyone that I am about to announce a time limit that has not been heard of for some time. The time limit in this debate will not be three minutes. It will initially be eight minutes. I should explain this unusual situation: the reason is that so many colleagues, at the last minute, withdrew not from this debate but from the previous debate, thereby leaving more time for this debate. We will therefore start with eight minutes, which is likely to reduce to about seven minutes, but I do not envisage its reducing to three minutes. I call Tom Tugendhat.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—and let’s push those eight minutes, shall we?
It is a great pleasure to be in the Chamber today talking about COP26, because it really is the absolute key event this year. We are going to get through covid, and we are already well along in the right direction due to the brilliance of various people in Government, in science and in the NHS, and many, many thousands of volunteers around the UK. That will free us and the world to focus on the real existential threat that we face, which is, of course, climate change.
I am delighted to follow my friend the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), under whose chairmanship the BEIS Committee has begun to expose some of the questions that we need to answer in the coming months. I am also delighted that we are working together on that, because one of the things I have discovered since taking the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee is how little of our international reach is exercised by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I thought that the largest and most seminal conference absorbing our diplomatic network and shaping our diplomatic output for this year would be run by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but it is not: it is run by the Cabinet Office, and run very ably by my right hon. Friend the COP26 President; I am delighted that he is supported so well by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. It was a bit of a surprise to me, but then again, I suppose I should not be surprised, because our Europe policy is also run by the Cabinet Office, and not even in this House, so perhaps I should expect our Americas policy and our Africa policy to be run by the Cabinet Office. Eventually, perhaps only our Scottish policy will be run by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but that would be a great shame. Maybe that can bring us back to talking about the importance of focusing on the joined-up policy that we need to see.
While the Select Committees have come together and have been working together, it is also worth pointing out how well the Government have begun to work together. When the French started their process, it resulted in the Paris COP21 that everybody remembers. That was not only a success at the time, but with the election of President Biden, it has become a renewed success as Paris has just been signed up to again by the United States. It took them two years, hundreds of diplomats and a former Prime Minister to bring all that together. That work was really, really tough. What my right hon. Friend has picked up on is that he started later with fewer staff and in the middle of the covid pandemic, and that makes it really difficult. However, I can report from, if he will excuse me, spies in other camps that the pace at which he is producing results is already very well received. I am delighted to say that in conversations I have had with representatives from other countries—I am not going to name them, but they are people who have spoken to him in recent days and weeks—they have reported that he is certainly well on the way to delivering a result.
Of course, this is not just down to my right hon. Friend; it is also down to our partners around the world. Many people have heard me in this House condemning communism, but I have to tell the House that I have actually been working very closely with a communist in order to try to achieve some of the results that we are all trying to share. He is my opposite number and colleague in the Italian Parliament—Piero Fassino, the former communist mayor of Turin, who now chairs its foreign affairs committee, because this conference is of course being organised jointly with our Italian partners. We have all welcomed my right hon. Friend’s co-operation with them.
In the run-up to our going to that wonderful city of Glasgow—my favourite city in the north—later this year, I very much hope that we will get a chance to see some of the progress along the way. My friend, the hon. Member for Bristol North West, has set out many of the targets that we should be looking to, and I hope that he will be as co-operative in reporting back to this House and to Parliament generally to make sure that we can help to guide the process. This will be one of those moments when we can define the future—we can change policies not just in this country but around the world to make these aims possible. We need to be talking actively not just about carbon offshoring and carbon pricing but about how we transform the very nature of the societies in which we are working. The hon. Gentleman spoke about Antarctica and, indeed, other areas being made uninhabitable. We need this to be a policy that is not just led by the Cabinet Office but touches on every single aspect of Britain’s foreign policy.
Whatever happens with the aid budget—I know that many of us hope that 0.7% will be rather more respected than do others—what we decide to do in aid, in diplomacy and in how we structure our trade policy will have a direct consequence on whatever my right hon. Friend agrees with partners around the world. That is why I very much hope that his role, as he sees it, will not just be about a conference—not just about an event, a day and a moment—and not even just about a deal, although it is a hugely important deal. Actually, this will be about a change of structure, a new understanding and a new partnership that engages all of us and—yes—the Biden Administration, who have already demonstrated such interest, as well as our partners in the European Union, our partners in the Commonwealth and, indeed, those countries with whom we have often found it harder to work. If we do not get this right, we will feel the pain—it is true—but we will also see an increased salination of the rice fields of eastern China, an increased desertification of the many parts of the world that are already struggling, and an erosion of the ability of many communities to sustain.
This year, the World Food Programme was rightly awarded the Nobel peace prize— a well-earned prize. I was fortunate enough to speak to its director general, Governor David Beasley, who is an amazing individual and a great friend of our country. He pointed out what I think is well worth remembering: if we think that the migration crisis that we saw in 2015 out of Syria was something serious, just imagine the crisis that would be caused if my right hon. Friend the COP26 President and his friends and partners around the world were to fail in Glasgow. I hope he knows that he will have the support of the whole House, and he will certainly have the support of the Committees, as we try to help him to shape and achieve the results that we all need.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I echo the words of the last speaker, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), about how monumental the decisions will be that need to be taken this November, because November’s COP26 in Glasgow is a historic opportunity for Britain to provide leadership to the world on climate change.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) and his colleagues on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, who have produced detailed reports that should be influencing the Cabinet Office and shaping the agenda in the run-up to COP26. Scientists and climate experts are urging the Government to lead the way in adopting ambitious deadlines for achieving net zero along with shorter-term interim targets, and it is those targets that are vital. The former Prime Minister committed the UK Government to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. The BEIS Committee said last week that
“no details have yet been provided on how success will be measured”
for COP 26. We cannot achieve significant carbon reductions by empty words, good PR or grandiose declarations. It takes action.
I have to say, last week’s Budget does not give us much hope of demonstrating world leadership. In fact, for some of us, it is a cause of despair and shame. The decisions by the Government to freeze fuel duty and to dig a new coalmine, and the pathetic scale of the Government’s environmental policies are a dereliction of duty to the planet and to future generations. It is a failure of Government, who could have acted to create hundreds of thousands of climate jobs in areas from wind turbines to tidal lagoons, from electric car charge points to tree planting, but there was no evidence of the scale of investment and scale of ambition that the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West called for. Instead of tying corporate tax breaks and investment write-offs to clear climate criteria, the giveaways announced in the Budget could hinder, rather than help our carbon reduction strategy.
The verdict of Richard Black from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit was that this was
“a Budget that didn’t even try to get the Conservatives on track to their net zero target”.
Today, there are reports that the Government will cut air passenger duty on domestic flights. Frankly, I would struggle to find a more regressive policy, and I speak as somebody who represents a constituency with Heathrow in it. I would struggle to find something that is more regressive than encouraging domestic aviation before we have had that debate and discussion and the development of the environmental aviation strategy.
It is crystal clear to me that this Government have no co-ordinated plan and no cross-departmental agenda to drive the decarbonisation that we seek. This is not just my view, but that of the Public Accounts Committee, which has been quoted. The PAC published a report on achieving net zero with the brutal conclusion, “Government lacks a plan”. Never have four words better summed up an Administration than that.
In terms of the modest 2050 target, the Committee said, damningly:
“there is little sign that it”—
the Government—
“understands how to get there”.
I will raise just one other point from the report, which said:
“Local authorities will also play a major role in the move to net zero, and Government will need to engage more with local authorities about how they can contribute”.
The irony is that today we learned that across the country more than two dozen councils are on the brink of bankruptcy, stripped of the funding to provide the statutory services their communities need, let alone the funding they need to take on the challenge of climate change.
The autumn statement is expected to be delivered on the eve of COP26. I just say to the Government that we hope for something better then. Otherwise, unless a serious plan is brought forward and unless there are significant resources attached to that plan, what leadership can the UK Government hope to offer the rest of the world? What authority can it possibly have in those vital discussions, when we are trying to bring together others, some more recalcitrant than others, who will be brought to the table to have a serious discussion only when they see others leading by example?
I believe that without drastic action COP26 risks exposing the UK Government as a laughing stock on climate change if we are not careful. I urge Ministers to change course and show some leadership. I urge them now to look at the reports our Select Committees have produced. They provide not just an agenda of issues to be addressed, but a direction that the Government could take. Otherwise, it is a betrayal of future generations. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West claimed the future for himself. Well, some of us older ones have an interest in the future as well, with our children and grandchildren. This November will ensure, hopefully, that they will have a planet that they can survive on and flourish on.
From the evidence I have seen so far—it is not just me; I think it is independent experts as well—the leadership the Government are showing is nowhere near the scale or commitment we need to demonstrate to the rest of the world what can be done, what needs to be done and what our country can contribute.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The time limit is now reduced, but it is only reduced to seven minutes.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your generosity in this debate.
Although it may have been a little hard to determine from the remarks by my immediate predecessor in this debate, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), he welcomed this debate and I join him in doing so. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) on his opening remarks. He is right that there is a consensus across the House. We all want to see COP26 as a hugely successful conference, not just for the UK but for the whole world, to set us on a path to zero emissions by 2050, an ambition that was set out some time ago.
The objectives for the COP26 series of discussions, which of course were due to have taken place last year had it not been for covid, were actually set at Paris five years ago. It is worth reminding ourselves, at the outset of my remarks, of the four particular commitments that were set for the forthcoming conference. The first was to enhance Governments’ nationally determined contributions. This will be the first time since Paris that they will have been ratcheted up. The second was to invite each country to provide a long-term strategy, to give a pathway to decarbonisation by 2050. Where I agree with the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is that it is beholden on the Government to set out clarity over the path to 2050, not just the target.
The third commitment was to do with finance. There was $100 billion per annum mobilised for the poorest countries to help them green their economies and adapt to the impact of climate change. We need to see how that is going to be delivered when we get to Glasgow.
Finally, there was the issue of the rulebook for a global carbon market to avoid double counting and to set the standards. Here, I think the UK has a great opportunity to show its famed global leadership. This conference will be the largest ever held in this country in terms of the number of countries participating, and I hope that most of them will be able to be here, in one form or another, in person. It is a real opportunity for the nation to lead the world and for the Prime Minister to put his stamp on the future.
As the UK is acting as host country—with Italy, as has been said—we will act as a neutral arbiter in these negotiations. We need to ensure that every country—every Paris signatory, at least—is supported in bringing forward its updated nationally determined contribution. At the beginning of the Paris conference, 186 of the 196 parties attending had presented their nationally determined contributions. I know that progress has been made, but we have a long way to go to match France’s performance when it hosted the last of this series of conferences.
The UK announced its contribution, a 68% reduction in emissions against the 1990 benchmark, last December. Several other countries have set out high-profile ambitions since, including China, Japan and South Korea looking to get to net zero by the mid-21st century, and some presenting nearer-term targets ahead of COP26. However, we still have to see progress from some major economies, including Russia, Brazil and Australia—and I know that the US will now be joining; we need to see where it gets to, too. Perhaps the COP26 President will update us on his discussions with President Biden’s special envoy, John Kerry, who was in the UK very recently.
I want to touch on two other aspects—first, how does Parliament engage in scrutinising progress? The Environmental Audit Committee—in common with other Committees, as we have heard—has undertaken various sessions in relation to COP26. The first was a year ago, when we engaged with stakeholders who were involved with previous COPs to establish what the Government’s preparations needed to focus on. We then had a session with Nigel Topping and Fiona Reynolds in May last year on the role of finance in leading the way for the upcoming COP, and we also questioned Christiana Figueres, the former executive secretary of the UN convention, last year. We questioned my right hon. Friend the COP26 President, who was then President-designate, in September last year.
Nine Select Committees have locus in relation to this issue, and we have all agreed to work together in scrutinising the UK Government preparations. We, as the Environmental Audit Committee, will lead the first of those scrutiny sessions, on cross-Government arrangements and the machinery of government, tomorrow morning. I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the COP26 President will be attending, with two of his senior officials.
The eyes of the world will be on us to make a credible success of COP. The challenge is across many areas. We need to use the national events that we have to demonstrate UK leadership. The UK has met the first and second carbon budgets and has already reduced emissions below the level expected in the third carbon budget, up to 2022. However, as is widely acknowledged, we are not on track to meet either the fourth or fifth carbon budgets, which were legislated for on the basis of an 80% cut in emissions using the 1990 baseline by 2050, rather than the more ambitious net zero target that we now have in legislation.
A major ramp-up is needed, as is acknowledged by the Committee on Climate Change, to achieve that, and the UK will have to make more progress. Although it has been succeeding in the power sector, emissions are either not falling or not falling fast enough across transport, agriculture, housing and industry. Bringing forward the petrol and diesel car ban is welcome, but it is not the only measure that the Government have to take—[Inaudible.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman has exceeded the time limit. I was trying to give him a little leeway, but the system will not allow me to let him finish his sentence. We therefore go to Kilmarnock, and to Alan Brown.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must say that this is the first time I have ever had the chance to get my red pen out and add to my notes, rather than having to scrub notes out frantically. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.
COP26 is clearly the most important COP since Paris, and it is critical for our net zero commitments. It is a chance for the UK to be on the world stage, but we have to ask whether matters are in hand. If we look at the Cabinet Office estimates, I would suggest not. We know that the Cabinet Office COP26 budget for this financial year was revised down from £216 million to just £22 million due to the postponement, but what has been achieved to date with that expenditure? What will the future budget look like? We do not really know, which in itself shows the entire farce of the estimates process.
Has the memorandum of understanding between Police Scotland and the UK Government been signed off, underwriting the estimated £180 million policing cost? Where is the budget line for that? We can still recall that the Home Office did not stump up for the Lib Dems’ party conference in Glasgow in 2013, which left Police Scotland £800,000 out of pocket. It is critical that the Police Scotland budget is not affected.
As a member of the BEIS Committee, I was pleased to take part in an inquiry about the COP26 preparations. The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) has covered it admirably, but I will reiterate some key recommendations that need to be considered. First, we need to ensure that the correct resource allocation from the civil service is in place. That needs a real focus from the Cabinet Office, not its current obsession with Union units. In the last couple of years, the Cabinet Office has also been a propaganda unit—first for Brexit, now the Union. Let us get a focus on COP26, which is a real priority.
We need to put in place measurable outcomes of success. The Committee has also suggested that parliamentary engagement needs to extend to the devolved legislatures, as well as the Westminster process. That brings us to the fact that leaders and relevant Ministers of the devolved Governments should form part of the UK delegation, as well as Opposition MPs. Let us show inclusivity as part of COP26, whatever Governments elsewhere do—but that will take real leadership from the COP26 President, given that we know the Prime Minister’s view on Scottish devolution.
We need the UK Government to set the sixth carbon budget as soon as possible, incorporating the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change in full. Serious consideration needs to be given to resetting the fifth carbon budget, which currently is not aligned to net zero.
Something else that I will throw into the mix is reconsidering the cuts to the foreign aid budget. As the right hon. Member for Ludlow pointed out, a lot of finance needs to be mobilised to help developing countries. We have started to debate the damage and loss going forward. It sends completely the wrong message that the UK, as the host country, is cutting its foreign aid to the poorest countries in the world.
Clearly covid has been an overriding UK Government priority, and they have to deal with an emergency, but it feels as if the extra time gained from the postponement has not been put to full use. We need more information on the preparations. Certainly we need some kind of decision-making timeline made available that ties in with public health assessments, and plans to ensure that no countries are left out going forward. We really need more progress on the agreement over the nationally determined contributions. It is critical that all spend associated with the preparations is transparent. There can be no more lucrative contracts for friends and cronies.
Leading by example also means having proper domestic policies in place, just as the Scottish Government have. It is a terrible state of affairs that we are still awaiting the heat and building strategy and we are still awaiting the hydrogen strategy. It should be noted that the Scottish Government have a 5 GW hydrogen production target, which is the same as the UK’s, so Scotland is showing much more ambition. Again, Scotland has a transport decarbonisation plan in place for a net zero target of 2035, but we are still awaiting the UK Government’s transport decarbonisation plan.
Without these key policies, there is no net zero strategy, and policies without funding commitments are effectively redundant. While there is a 10-point plan with a figure of 600,000 heat pump installations a year, this means nothing without a funded programme to back it up. That programme needs to be aligned with energy-efficient installations and should start targeting off-grid properties. There are 3,000 deaths a year in the UK related to fuel poverty, so the UK Government also need to invest far more directly in energy efficiency and demonstrate a net zero transition that will not push up energy bills and create more fuel poverty.
When it comes to transport, Scotland can demonstrate the world’s first hydrogen double-decker buses. The Scottish Government have facilitated orders for electric and hydrogen buses from Alexander Dennis Ltd. Where is the UK Government’s national bus strategy? This is the type of leadership and joined-up thinking that is lacking at the moment.
I would ask the UK Government to be bold, and to abandon nuclear. This is not going to be the technology saviour they demonstrate to the rest of the world. We still cannot deal with nuclear waste, so we really do need to move away from this. Ahead of COP26, they should give sign-off for pumped-storage hydro. Floating offshore wind, green hydrogen, and wave and tidal technologies are the renewable technologies to focus on, so can we confirm ring-fenced contracts for difference pots for those? We should look at innovation in power purchase agreements for smaller marine projects to allow them to get to market.
Those are technologies that the UK and in particular Scotland, as the host country, can show to the world and be part of a coherent plan for an energy strategy. We need to be able to demonstrate it as part of the overall plan to lead other countries and make COP26 a real success. There is a lot of work to do in domestic policy and a lot of work in the negotiations that lie ahead of COP26 to make it a success.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Just for everybody’s information, the wind-ups will start no later than 6.28 pm with Deidre Brock. There will then be shadow Minister Matthew Pennycook at 6.38 pm, the COP26 President at 6.48 pm, and Darren Jones at 6.58 pm.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker, I sense that you are probably not as familiar with Glasgow as the Chairman of Ways and Means, who preceded you in the Chair, but I, as a former Secretary of State for Scotland and, indeed, a Scottish Member of Parliament, am delighted that the United Kingdom Government have brought COP26 to Scotland—to Glasgow. As we all know, Glasgow is a great city that can handle this event, and notwithstanding the issues that people have rightly raised about what is achieved at the conference, I believe Glasgow has every ability to host an event of such scale and to do it in a memorable way.
I do hope that we will see the new President of the United States attend the event. I had the rather dubious duty of welcoming the previous President of the United States to Scotland on one of his visits to the United Kingdom. At that event, he told me that he loved Scotland, but very unfortunately he did not follow it through during his presidency by removing the punitive tariffs on whisky.
Despite some of the remarks that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), I hope that we will see the full engagement of the Scottish Government in a positive way for this event. When we face a global climate emergency, the cost of the Lib Dem Scottish conference in 2013 is not really the issue of the moment that we need to be addressing or hearing about. I want to see the Scottish Government engage positively. I was encouraged to hear the First Minister of Scotland addressing businesses in relation to COP and the opportunities that it would bring. That is the tone that we want to hear. Also, it is not a competition between policies pursued by the Scottish Government and those pursued by the UK Government: I welcome the progress that has been made on many fronts in Scotland, but that does not mean that everything is right. Likewise, there are many positive aspects within the UK, but within Scotland, we could do better.
The principal point that I want to make in my contribution is that I want to see widespread public and civic engagement flowing from this event. I think most of us in the Chamber are familiar with major events taking place where there is little or no public engagement. The circus comes to town; all the important people arrive; they are all cordoned off; they are in their cars; and there are all the events, yet the average member of the public has little engagement or connection with them. Under my analysis, COP26 will not be a complete success unless we have engaged extensively with the wider public. The clear message is that each and every one of us owns climate change. Each and every one of us makes a difference, and if we exclude members of the public—if they do not feel part of this event, and it feels distant and remote from them—we are not going to achieve that.
I am very hopeful that my constituency will benefit economically from the overflow of guests and those attending requiring accommodation. That, of course, will be positive, but I also want there to be engagement with communities and groups that are already interested, and are themselves already very active on this front. For example, on Friday I am hosting an online event with a community group called Tweed Green, in Peebles in my constituency, to which members will come with all sorts of questions and issues: some about the climate emergency and what this Parliament is doing, and some on more local issues. They want to be part of this event, and we need to provide a way of their doing so. There are also lots of great local projects, such as the hydro scheme that has been run by the Keir, Penpont, and Tynron local trust. We have lots of local examples, and I am sure every Scottish Member could stand up in this Chamber and cite those examples. We want to see that level of engagement.
Of course, there are challenges, and we have to confront those challenges. I have more onshore wind turbines either in situ or in planning in my constituency, and just because, for example, people wish to oppose such developments does not make them anti-COP or anti-dealing with climate change. My plea to the COP26 President—I will be very interested in his concluding remarks—is to engage the public of Scotland: engage civic Scotland, engage stakeholders, and engage young people. I believe Scotland wants to play its part in making this a huge success. I do not in any way diminish the challenges that have already been raised by other speakers about what is achieved within the conference arena: if we achieve nothing there, that will of course mean that the event has not succeeded. However, to conclude, I reiterate that in my view, the event will not have succeeded unless we engage with the people of Scotland.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell). My immediate priority is to ensure that the Government have the wherewithal to deliver this. They have many key priorities at the moment, not least the recovery from covid, economic rebuilding, consolidating Brexit and establishing the UK’s new place in global affairs, but what could be more important to that fourth priority than COP26, which represents such a critical opportunity for the world to address the increasingly severe impacts of the climate crisis? The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, described it as a “crucial milestone”, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) said:
“The eyes of the world will be on us”.
The UK has often taken the lead on climate issues, and this presidency is a chance to push for ambitious commitments from partners across the globe. I personally favour the idea of a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, embodying treaty commitments to limit fossil fuels coming out of the ground or to bind states to offsetting carbon capture and storage. We already have a good record on that in our own country, and it is important that our own policies reinforce the UK’s commitment to this work. Examples include our commitments to international marine reserves, which promote carbon capture; to agricultural reform and rewilding; to our net zero target; and to insulating homes and reducing carbon emissions from transport. Incidentally, we are going to have one of the biggest hydrogen production green energy hubs in Essex, at the new freeport that was announced last week.
The key to success in the past has been the significant effort and resources expended on conferences like these, long before the conference itself. I was reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, a little while ago that the French employed a former Prime Minister, Laurent Fabius, and he had 12 months and 200 diplomats at his disposal to support the preparation for the Paris COP in 2015. I very much congratulate the COP26 President, my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), on his appointment and on being given a Cabinet-level role for his COP presidency. He is wholly devoted to it, but it is vital that he has a team with both the resources and the clout, not just to bring our international partners together, involving many Foreign Office resources, but to ensure that the Government Departments work together to deliver on our own targets and our own work.
I serve on the Public Accounts Committee, and we had to report that the net zero target was not effectively embedded in policy making on a cross-Whitehall basis, so I ask my right hon. Friend: what is the machinery of government that is going to back him up and support his work in the run-up to COP26? We have been expecting a written ministerial statement, and we still expect it. I have been invited to guest on the Environmental Audit Committee tomorrow, and I expect I will press him on this subject then if he does not want to answer that question in the debate this evening. The question is: how much real clout does the machinery of government give the him to deliver this very substantial and defining task for the Government?
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow pointed out, the Select Committee system in this House is already getting well prepared. Three Chairs of Committees have commented already in this debate, and the Committees are linking their inquiries. The Transport Committee is looking at zero-emission vehicles, the Treasury Committee has been working on decarbonisation and green finance, one of the key summit issues, and the Science and Technology Committee is looking at the potential for hydrogen to meet the UK’s net zero target. The Committees are also demonstrating their flexibility and willingness to collaborate, and I am delighted that they are coming together in this way, effectively to form a kind of informal committee on COP26 to scrutinise the work of the Government in the run-up to the COP summit.
I have to say that this is also an effort to limit the demands on my right hon. Friend the COP President’s time so that there is no duplication of evidence taking by different Committees. As I say, he is coming before the Environmental Audit Committee tomorrow. I ask him what commitments he can make to the programme of other meetings that I, as Chairman of the Liaison Committee, am setting out and that other Committees are setting out, in order that we have a coherent programme of scrutiny of the work of the Government up to COP26.
The big challenge here is for the Government to put themselves in the global picture on the most important global summit we are likely to see them undertake in this Parliament; there will be G7s, G8s and NATOs, but nothing is going to cap this. This is the defining COP summit that has to crown the achievement of the Paris summit. I very much hope that this will be seen as a British diplomatic success and not as something that other countries have had to sort out for us. My right hon. Friend has an enormous task. I congratulate him again on his appointment and wish him all the very best. He should come to the Select Committees, perhaps privately, if he needs us to add pressure in order to ensure that he can deliver the task that the Prime Minister has given him.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), all the more so because I think he just said he supported the proposal for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty—a new commitment to leave fossil fuels in the ground. If I heard him right, I would be delighted to work with him to help to achieve that.
COP26 is arguably the most crucial global summit in recent history, so it will be vital that the COP26 unit receives all the support and funding necessary to deliver a successful COP, even if that goes beyond the £260 million it has already been allocated. The world is watching and the stakes could not be higher. I welcome the fact that the COP26 President-designate is now full-time, able to dedicate all his efforts towards the COP, but if we are to achieve the results we so desperately need the whole of Government needs to be oriented towards a successful outcome from the negotiations. That means greater consistency and ambition across Departments if we are to show credible climate leadership, and it means having the plan that the Public Accounts Committee clearly identified as conspicuous by its absence.
It also means addressing the weakness and incoherence of our domestic climate policy: the Government’s failure to call in the recent decision to allow a new coalmine in Cumbria; the £27 billion road building programme; the freezing of fuel duty for the 10th year; the approach whereby air passenger duty is apparently to be reduced; the absence of serious climate action in the Budget; and the lack of a guarantee that measures such as the super deduction tax break will not be available for high-carbon investments. The list goes on, and with a record such as that it is no wonder we are off course to meet both our fourth and fifth carbon budgets. Not only that, but of course those budgets are based on an 80% emission reduction target by 2050, not net zero. No wonder, either, that the latest annual progress report from the Committee on Climate Change highlighted that the Government have failed on 17 of their 21 progress indicators and that just two out of 31 key policy milestones have been met.
When presented with facts such as those, Ministers like to say, “We have reduced emissions by over 40% since 1990”, but let us have some honesty here, because that is true only of territorial emissions, not imported emissions. It has been achieved only by offshoring so much of our manufacturing—in essence, outsourcing our emissions to countries such as China. As well as greater ambition at home, we must also use our presidency to redouble our diplomatic engagements to reinforce the need for strong Paris-aligned climate ambition.
On the arrangements for Glasgow itself, I appreciate that discussions are still ongoing about whether it will be physical attendance, online or a hybrid mode, but however the negotiations take place, everything must be done to ensure full and equal participation of the global south and of civil society. That, of course, means equitable access to vaccines, and on that I echo the words of the Chair of the BEIS Committee. Countries in the global south have already expressed concern in response to the call by António Guterres for preparatory negotiations to take place online. Any online negotiations must be inclusive and all countries must have the technical and financial support they need to participate on equal terms.
Moving on to outcomes, the UN is reporting that only 75 countries so far have brought forward new NDC commitments and that together they would reduce emissions by only about 1% by 2030, which is far from the 45% recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We are on course for climate catastrophe, yet a successful COP26 will not be defined by emission targets alone, crucial though those are; it will also mark the start of a process to set a specific target for climate finance beyond 2025. On this, the Government talk a good game, with the Prime Minister repeatedly boasting that the UK has doubled its commitment to £11.6 billion, up from £5.8 billion. While it is true that the UK performs well in some areas—for example, providing the majority through grants and allocating 50% to adaptation— all is not as it seems, as is so often the case with this Government.
The entirety of the UK’s climate finance commitment comes from the aid budget, which the Chancellor is cutting from 0.7% to 0.5%. That is despite the fact that, under the UN framework convention on climate change, climate finance was negotiated by all parties in good faith as new and additional finance. It was understood to be additional to the long-standing commitment to ODA, not taken from money that developing countries were set to achieve anyway. Not only is this morally wrong, it will also undermine the trust that we so desperately need as we head towards the negotiations in November.
As an immediate step, I call on the Government to reverse the cut to the aid budget and to ensure that the finance is genuinely new and additional. As COP26 host, the UK must also call on other countries to bring forward new and additional commitments to climate finance, including at least 50% allocated to adaptation; grants, not loans; and a significant increase in the finance provided to the least developed countries and small island developing states. Just 3% of climate finance reported to the OECD for 2017-18 went to small island developing states—countries that are on the frontline of the climate emergency.
Loss and damage is an overlooked area of the Paris agreement but is profoundly important for vulnerable countries—so important that failing to address this pivotal issue could lead to the collapse of the talks at COP26. Currently, no financial support has been agreed for loss and damage, despite the most vulnerable countries having to take on the debt to deal with consequences of global heating. In January this year, Mozambique was hit by Storm Eloise, which killed more than 1,000 people, destroyed 100,000 homes and flooded thousands of hectares of crops. At that point, the country had yet to recover from Cyclones Idai and Kenneth in 2019, which pushed its public debt to almost 110% of its GDP.
We cannot let vulnerable countries be pushed further into debt by the climate crisis. The UK must put its pre-existing position, which has been to block loss and damage, to one side. It must use its role as a neutral COP26 president to thoughtfully and effectively facilitate a way to progress action on loss and damage finance and to stand in solidarity with communities that are suffering the worst impacts right now. At the heart of COP26 is the issue of climate justice, and as summit hosts, we will be judged on our ability to deliver it.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). If I recall correctly, Ronald Reagan had a quote on his desk in the White House that was along the lines of, “There’s no limit to what you can achieve or how far you can go, as long as you don’t care who takes the credit.” I see the role of the COP26 President as quite unusual in politics, because what the President, his team, this Government and this country have to do is get the world to agree to a set of different things along our achieved aims, and not care who gets the credit but get the job done. I have huge confidence in the COP26 President and his ability to do that.
I will not repeat what has been said about NDCs and various issues by other Members, who have made thoughtful speeches. I will identify three key areas in which I would like to hear the Government’s and the President’s plans on where we are going and how exactly we will achieve our aims not just as a country but as a world in trying to deal with this global problem. Those three areas are carbon emissions, carbon sequestration and rare metals, mining and manufacturing.
On emissions, we have already heard from many speakers about the need for a big increase in the number of countries submitting more ambitious NDCs. We all accept that, and I am sure that the COP26 President is working for it. The key thing that I am interested in is the plan to improve it. How will we try to achieve it materially? Even if we succeed in getting lots of countries to sign up for more ambitious net zero targets, which I am confident we will be able to do, and can back that up with concrete plans, in essence, in a few years’ time we will be going around this merry-go-round again. I am therefore very interested in the COP26 President’s plans for how we will achieve that.
To follow on from the remarks made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, who talked at length about the need for finance and mobilising climate finance, about which she is completely right, what are our plans to mobilise the asset of the City of London? There is huge good will in the City of London, as I know through the work that I do with the all-party parliamentary group on bankers for net zero and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for renewable and sustainable energy—PRASEG—and through dealing with a great deal of liaison among APPGs, the COP26 President and the Government on COP26. There is a lot of enthusiasm, but how will the Government take that enthusiasm and positive energy and turn it into results on a global scale? Let me quote the Lord Mayor of London, William Russell, at a talk I was at recently. He said that the message should be:
“go green or go home”.
That is the message we should take to the City of London and to others.
On carbon sequestration, many experts—I notice that experts are back in fashion—have said that in order for us to achieve net zero by 2050, even if we decarbonise at the rate we all know we need to decarbonise at, it may be necessary to take something in the region of 120 gigatonnes to 160 gigatonnes of carbon out of the atmosphere. I had to look up what a gigatonne was. I knew that it sounded very big but I needed to work out how big. For information, it is 1 billion metric tonnes. Indeed, a metric tonne is 1,000 kg. That is a lot of carbon.
Getting the technology and achieving the target will require a huge amount of private sector innovation for technologies that have not yet even been invented in many respects. Government can help. In the United States, there is tax relief on carbon removals investment, for example. But we may need to do things to sponsor carbon removal markets and try to help consumers and businesses direct their spending on capital to new technology. One example is called Zero Exchange, which is led by Daniel Korski, Ryan Shea and Lichelle Wolmarans. There may be other examples, but this is one way of providing a carbon removal market. These are the sorts of innovative ideas that I would like to see championed at COP so that we can funnel capital that we know is there and harness that enthusiasm and energy into positive results to take carbon out of the atmosphere. That does not get enough attention.
Finally, on rare metals, up until the renaissance, human beings used about six or seven metals. In the industrial revolution, we used about a dozen. Now, with rare metals included, we are using in the region of 89 or 90. Why am I talking about rare metals in this debate? Rare metals such as lithium, which is key for batteries for electric cars and wind turbines; niobium, which helps us make energy-efficient vehicles and steel structures; and coltan, which is a key ingredient for mobile phones, do not come out of thin air. They come out of the ground. Most of those metals are not located in this country or even in Europe. The United States has a bit, but China has a significant amount and they are also found in sub-Saharan African and South America.
I have two questions related to rare metals and mining. This is something that none of us likes to think about, because we like to think of the green revolution as entirely clean, but, in order to make the green things, we will have to get some of those rare metals out of the ground. The first of my questions is an environmental one and concerns the standards of that mining. We must make sure that those standards are as high as possible so that we do not cause environmental damage, which, sadly, is the sometimes the case. The second is a geopolitical one. Are we content for this to happen just in other countries, or are we willing to do some of the heavy-lifting ourselves, and, indeed, to finance it as well?
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami). He is absolutely right: negative emission technologies have not been developed yet, and yet they are vital for us to get to net zero.
Hosting COP26 in the UK, especially as it marks the beginning of the implementation of the Paris agreement, is a great honour. We are asked significantly to increase our ambition and achieve what we promised in 2016—let us remember that we now have to get to net zero, not just to 80% of emissions.
The UK has a historic responsibility for causing the ecological and climate emergency. We must now use our power on the international stage to get to net zero, address the nature crisis, and lead by example globally. We must push for the strongest possible ambition from our international partners, but we cannot do that if our own credibility is undermined. Therefore, we need clear and ambitious domestic targets for which the Government can be held responsible immediately. Getting to net zero in 29 years’ time means little if we cannot hold the Government to account in the meantime. We are, as we have already heard, way off when it comes to hitting our own targets, so is the rest of the international community. We must do better.
COP26, as we have already heard, is not all about us. Island nations risk losing entire cultures to sea-level rises. New species risk going extinct every day that we allow illegal deforestations to continue. Every day that we delay action, we get closer to new tipping points in our national ecosystem. We must make sure that the money we put into COP26 includes adequate support for the global south, so that it has the same access and can participate as usual despite the pandemic. The UK Government must commit to offering visas to delegates and accredited civil society from the global south. Every year, hard-working, dedicated activists are turned away from contributing to international climate policy. Furthermore, let us ensure that people from across the UK, from across all backgrounds and from across all ages are involved in the preparation of this conference. COP26 is a vital historic moment for international climate action; let us not waste it.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) [V]
I am delighted to participate in this debate on estimates for COP26. Two years ago, as interim energy Minister, I helped to secure for the United Kingdom and Italy their joint bid to host COP26. I am delighted to see the progress that has already been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma). I want to put on record my admiration for him personally. Having worked extremely hard to climb the ladder of ministerial office to become a Secretary of State, he has decided to relinquish that office to become solely COP26 President. That demonstrates his commitment to the necessary values and the outcome that is needed from COP—he is not merely a simple politician but has put himself in the place of a true statesman.
If this COP is to be a success, as was the COP in Paris five years ago, it is absolutely right that we need to be driven by values and outcomes. It is quite clear that net zero by 2050 will slowly—perhaps more quickly—become the goal that comes out of COP26. I was the Minister who signed the net zero target into law on 27 June 2019, having led the debate in Parliament. It is easy to say that net zero should be legislated for, but since then I have seen the demonstration of the UK’s potential to lead this debate and to enact change. We have seen France, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and, hopefully, the United States sign up to net zero by 2050, with China potentially signing up to net zero by 2060. We emit 1% of the world’s global emissions, yet this is where the UK can achieve and succeed in demonstrating that, as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) mentioned, we can lead by example.
To achieve net zero, we need to ensure that COP26 is not just a high-level summit with similarly high-level lofty ambitions just from Government. If it is to deliver change, it needs to be about a whole-of-society approach, which means taking a long-term strategic position, not merely talking about what is happening in 2021. To put it into context, just 4% of the UK population even know what net zero means. That demonstrates the scale of the challenge we face in reaching net zero. We need a vision that can embrace the need for human behavioural change. This is where climate change policy 2.0 needs to be carved out. I shall come on to talk about the technological and energy supply changes that we have seen when it comes to climate change policy, but we now need to embrace the human dimension—we need not only to embrace humans’ hopes for change but understand their fears and how those fears can be tackled in future.
The UK has led on emission reductions in the G7: we have reduced emissions by 40% since 1990, despite growing our overall economy by 70%. That demonstrates that we can ensure growth regardless of the need for change. Between 2008 and 2018, we reduced emissions by 28%, yet we have now we set a target of reducing emissions by 68% by 2030. That is a huge escalation in ambition, which is welcome but still a challenge. Of the 28% reduction between 2008 and 2018, 56% of the decrease was in energy supply. Make no mistake: that was the low-hanging fruit.
We now need to reach far higher to get to far more difficult-to-reach sectors such as transport. Power and energy supply made up 66 million tonnes of the 496 million tonnes that we emitted in 2018; transport made up 115 million tonnes of that, yet its reduction between 2008 and 2018 was just 3%. To achieve the reductions that we are going to need, we will have to embrace systems-wide policy making that embraces operational research and does not rely just on announcements and speeches, which will not deliver policy change and will not allow for successful policy implementation.
First, we require a systems-wide change to Government delivery. The COP President currently sits within the Cabinet Office, which is right, but post COP we need a net zero Department that unites all Departments across Whitehall. We also need to embrace partnership working. COP26 will not be a success just through the efforts of the Cabinet Office and my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West, no matter how phenomenal a job I believe he is doing. I follow his Twitter feed every morning, noon and night and it is amazing what he is achieving, but he is one man. We can do so much more by embracing other institutions, such as universities, local authorities and devolved mayoralties. We should also focus on how we can create net zero regions, as I know we are doing, to drive systems change for the future. Universities stand ready—as a former Minister for Universities and chair of the all-party group on universities, I know that there is group of universities for COP26—and they will be at the forefront of delivering on research when it comes to achieving net zero.
On research and how we reach the scale that we need to achieve for the future, we need to take a mission-based approach, in respect of not only societal adaptation and change but new science and innovation structures to deliver net zero. The Prime Minister has spoken of “moonshots”, and we can frame COP26 and net zero by using the moonshot approach. The Government’s 10-point plan has set out ambitions for what we can achieve in the next 10 years; 600,000 heat pumps by 2028 is a great target, but we need to focus on wider ambitions, including expanding hydrogen supply. We need to be setting sector-wide approaches that are ambitious, but can be realised and delivered through structures—even legislation. That would enable these ambitions to be driven in a really tough way, rather than just being policy announcements.
Finally, we need dedicated climate change research and technological funds that are internationally based for COP26. We are hosting the G7 this year, and we have huge international ambitions for the United Kingdom. Why not place our faith in science, innovation and research by creating new funds that the UK can lead to get other countries behind us and deliver on net zero for the future?
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), especially as he finished on such a key point about how advances in technology can help us to deal with the immense challenge that we face. It is also incredibly welcome that COP26 is happening in Glasgow, in our United Kingdom.
When we think of the environmental agenda and dealing with carbon dioxide emissions, we must be aware that we have to do it in a way that not only enables but enhances our ability to be a strong manufacturing country, so that we bring back manufacturing to the United Kingdom, rather than seeing it go abroad. Key to that is having affordable energy, especially for heavier industry. Manufacturing ought to be a key part of our levelling-up agenda, especially in the north of England; that would be incredibly welcome.
I have a bit of a concern about part of this debate not only here, but more broadly, and that relates to the Cumbrian coalmine. It is almost as though people are choosing wilfully to disregard the fact that this coal is metallurgical coal—coking coal. The purpose of this coal is for use in the steel industry. There are no economically viable alternatives to the use of this coal. If we do not use it, we do not have a steel industry. It is not thermal coal. We have a commitment to get rid of thermal coal from the system, but we ought to recognise the importance of metallurgical coal. The mine in Cumbria will be supporting 500 jobs directly and about 2,000 indirectly. Much of this coal will be used in the United Kingdom, so when we set our faces against the Cumbrian coalmine, we are setting our faces against a significant number of jobs, which are so welcome in the north of England.
Some people approach carbon emissions almost as though by exporting important manufacturing jobs we can reduce emissions in the United Kingdom. But when we export the emissions, the jobs and the manufacturing, the carbon does not respect national boundaries; it will still have an impact on climate change across the world. We have to recognise that the United Kingdom has high environmental standards, so having manufacturing here means less carbon is produced than if the same manufacturing were happening overseas. We ought to spend a little bit more time celebrating the fact that UK manufacturing has such high standards.
When we think about how we provide energy to deal with climate change, we often focus on wind turbines and solar energy, but we ought to think a little more about the contributions from the nuclear industry. I have always thought about the baseload supply that the nuclear industry can provide. I understand now that the proper term we should be using is “firm energy”—the energy that we can reliably use in manufacturing and other sectors, having the certainty that the supply will be there, no matter what. It is also a green energy. The carbon footprint of nuclear power stations is about the same size as for solar,
so it ought to be seen as a very long-term commitment to energy supply, and it will deal with concerns over carbon. Can my right hon. Friend, in dealing with this important issue through his presidency of COP26, provide any certainty to the nuclear industry? It is important that the United Kingdom has a tempo of building these power stations: the industry provides high-quality jobs, and there is great investment in skills, which we need to retain in the sector. After all, the nuclear industry will provide firm green energy, whatever the weather, the time of day or the day of the year.
Probably the one energy source that is better than nuclear fission is nuclear fusion, so I congratulate the Government on their ambitious plans to develop the spherical tokamak for energy production fusion prototype. This prototype is intended to develop a commercially viable fusion reactor. COP26 ought to be about not just the things we cannot do or that we must constrain but being ambitious about the technological advances that we can look forward to in future. This prototype can be part of that.
In the north-west of England, in particular, there is a wealth of talent in the nuclear sector, whether in Cheshire, Lancashire or Cumbria. We have the Institute for Materials Research at the University of Bolton. The University of Manchester has an amazing history and legacy in the nuclear, or atomic, sector going back as far as John Dalton and then Ernest Rutherford, and now there is its continuing expertise with the Dalton Nuclear Institute. We have a wealth of talent, and we ought to be focused far more on technological solutions to concerns such as climate change and carbon emissions. What could be finer to announce at the COP26 summit than that the future of green energy will deliver on our levelling-up agenda, using the talents of so many people across the north-west, building on our heritage, and making Bolton the location and the future of safe, reliable and abundant energy by siting the spherical tokamak prototype there?
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) and his colleagues for enabling this important debate to be held today. I also thank Members from across the House for their contributions. They have made some excellent points about the Government’s plans for COP26, with many focusing on the lack of clarity around the efforts made so far on the road to COP26 and to our critical net zero targets. We have heard repeated calls for the Government to outline their proposed path to net zero, not just their targets, as was suggested by the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne). Certainly, speaking as a representative from a Scottish constituency, the continued uncertainty over their plan for the involvement and participation of devolved Administrations in the delegation, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), seems unforgivable given the lead that Scotland is taking on climate issues.
The thing to really focus on is the Government’s planning for COP26. If that planning exists, there is, I am afraid, little evidence for it. There may be a few targets floating about, but there are no details of the strategies, no plans, and no route map to reaching all those targets. There may be a nationally determined contribution, which sounds impressively whizzy, but there is none of the real grunting heave of an effort needed to move us along towards any kind of emissions reduction. There is so little ambition, drive, vision or political capital being expended. The motions are being well rehearsed. If going through the motions was what was needed, we could all sleep soundly in our beds, but the truth is that we are facing the nightmare of a crisis worse than the pandemic—it is unimaginable, but the scenario is that terrifying. The UK has a Government playing shadow puppets with the issues. Perhaps worst of all, the UK is supposed to be leading world discussions in a few months’ time.
As COP21 showed in creating the Paris agreement, delivery on an ambitious programme and a visionary agenda requires the agenda and the programme first, but it also needs a whole of Government effort and a comprehensive and dedicated diplomatic effort to pull it off. The French Government showed themselves capable. They delivered. The evidence given to the BEIS Committee suggests that the UK Government will miss the train altogether.
The Committee was told that the diplomatic effort of the UK amounted to the Foreign Secretary and the permanent secretary in that Department sending a few letters to diplomatic staff to remind them about it. It was a note to remind them to do their homework, as if the diplomats needed that. The previous COP26 President told the Committee of the chaos and infighting in Whitehall that bedevilled her attempts to get anything done, although the CEO of the COP26 unit assured the Committee that everything was hunky-dory now and that they are working night and day to deliver.
I had a look at the COP26 team on the website, and there were a couple of folk from environmental think-tanks and pressure groups in among the career civil servants, but there was also a former deputy head of press at Tory HQ—now policy adviser to the COP26 President—and a former Tory special adviser, who is now the strategy director. Then there are a couple of bankers and a businessman bringing his experience of emerging markets, but that lack of focus on environmental and climate change expertise does not inspire confidence.
I have no doubt that these civil servants will do their jobs efficiently and well, and I have no doubt that the diplomats engaged as regional ambassadors will deliver on what they are asked, but they need political leadership and the investment of political capital, and that is missing. If I may, I point to the evidence that Lord Deben gave to the BEIS Committee in July last year, speaking as chair of the Climate Change Committee. Responding to a question about whether sufficient progress was being made towards the net zero target, he said:
“We are clearly not. In almost every sector, we are failing…The Government are not on track to meet the fourth and fifth carbon budget”.
He went on to say that measures were “not taken quickly enough” and that the Government
“have simply not done the radical things that need to be done.”
That is fairly unequivocal. He went on to say that using the pandemic as an excuse for inaction, rather than a “springboard” for action would be unforgivable. We are sliding down that slope from which there may be no return, and we are still waiting for Government action.
Even the arrangements for the summit in Glasgow are opaque. We have a bald and unconvincing headline Budget figure with no more to it. We have an agreement with Police Scotland that there will be no detriment to its budget, although some of us remember that the same was promised for the Gleneagles G8 in 2005, but Scotland still got left with that bill. There appears to be little if any consultation, engagement or interaction with the Scottish Government over this event, which will be on their patch.
While I am seeking clarity, I hope the COP26 President will see his way clear to elaborating on the arrangements with MCI over accommodation. There appears to be some exclusivity being claimed for that organisation, and the booking website appears to suggest that using any other accommodation provider in Scotland is likely to result in some loss to the customer. I am sure he will agree that that unintentional slur should be corrected at the earliest possible opportunity.
Will the COP26 President elaborate on the arrangements with MCI? How will it make a profit, and will any of that profit be heading back to the Government? Will international visitors be getting surcharged for MCI’s services? Furthermore, has MCI been given what amounts to a Government monopoly with the arrangement that it entered into? Will he publish all the tendering documents and other correspondence around that arrangement?
The operation of the summit is one thing; the fight against climate chaos is another. Here we are approaching the setting of the sixth carbon budget, with COP26 following close behind, and still we do not know what the Government’s intentions are. We still do not have a really clear idea of what they hope to get out of the summit. The Chancellor’s Budget lacked any real commitment to environmental action or action to address climate chaos, and it seems like the efforts on COP26 will match that lack of ambition all too well.
The truth is that the current UK Government just do not care enough about the issue to want to address it. They are so blinkered to the probable effects of the changing climate that they will stumble blindly on, hoping that it all goes well in the end; so tone-deaf to the pleas of climate activists that they cannot see the benefit of copying the French and putting in the early effort to get results. COP26 is on course to be an opportunity wasted, and it will be wasted simply because the Government do not put in the effort.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to respond to this debate on behalf of the Opposition. Given the importance of the subject, I hope it is the first of many over the next eight months.
I start by commending my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), as well as the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) for securing the debate and for their insightful contributions. I also praise the powerful speeches made by others who participated. I will single out the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who spoke powerfully about the need for participation on equal terms by all the parties at COP26; the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) and the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore); the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell, who made an interesting point about the need for citizen engagement to realise the promise of the summit taking place in the UK; and the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who—much to my delight—made the case not just for reducing demand for fossil fuels but, quite rightly, on the imperative to scale down their supply as a matter of urgency if we are to address the climate crisis.
As the first real test of the landmark Paris agreement, the COP26 summit in Glasgow in November will be a critical moment in the fight against runaway global heating. We all have a stake in ensuring that it is a success, and in that spirit I reiterate the Opposition’s desire to play a constructive role in the process and put on the record our support for whatever financial resources are required to effectively plan and deliver the conference. As the hosts of the summit, the Government are presented with not only an unrivalled opportunity to demonstrate climate leadership in the coming months, but a solemn responsibility to do all they can to maximise global ambition and to secure agreement on a road map for delivering on that ambition and the Paris agreement.
There is a wide range of distinct issues on which further progress is essential ahead of November, including the nature crisis and biodiversity loss, and what more must be done to green the financial system and find agreement on robust article 6 rules, but given the time available to me, I will touch on three specific issues that have been a feature of today’s debate. The first is mitigation.
As my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee and others remarked, in its first assessment of global climate pledges ahead of COP26, published 10 days ago, the UNFCCC made it clear that the world is currently on course only for emissions reductions of 1% by the end of this critical decade, not the 45% reduction that is required to keep alive the hope of limiting heating to 1.5°C. The COP26 President knows that we would have liked the Government to be even more ambitious, but there is no question but that the UK’s NDC, now submitted, and the 2030 target of omissions reductions of least 68% are ambitious and will be extremely challenging to deliver. As the summit’s host, the UK needs to be making the case forcefully, both publicly and privately, for a far greater level of ambition from others, so that by November the world will have decisively closed the gap between our current temperature trajectory and where we need to be to realise the Paris agreement.
I hope that the COP26 President will update the House on the efforts he is making, in particular to ensure that large emitters that have not yet done so submit ambitious NDCs in the near future, and on what the Government are doing to compel recalcitrant nations, in particular Australia, Japan, South Korea and Russia, which have merely resubmitted existing NDCs, and Brazil and Mexico, which have backtracked on their existing targets, to think again in the few months that remain until the summit.
The second issue is climate justice. As much as it increasingly defines our approach to climate here at home, COP26 is not simply about the race to net zero among advanced economies; it is also about delivering on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and making tangible progress on adaptation, loss and damage, and financial assistance.
As I know the COP26 President is aware, this agenda is a defining one for many African states, the most vulnerable developing countries and small island states. Those nations were essential to the international consensus on which the success at Paris was built, and their active consent is imperative for a successful outcome in Glasgow.
With only limited progress made in this area last year, with trust in short supply and with concerns heightened by decisions such as the cut to the UK’s overseas aid budget, this must be a diplomatic priority over the next eight months. Again, perhaps in his closing remarks the COP26 President could tell the House what more the Government intend to do in that period to demonstrate solidarity and support for those on the frontline of the climate crisis, particularly in bringing forward finance on loss and damage and in meeting. and then surpassing, the US$100 billion a year.
According to the OECD, less than $80 billion has been pledged so far, with only $12 billion taking the form of grants rather than loans. The UK’s record in that regard is a good one, but perhaps the COP26 President could remark on whether he sees loans as a legitimate means to meet the target and whether he thinks there is a need to rebalance loans towards grants to make up the $100 billion.
My third point is about domestic policy. There is an obligation on the House to engage properly with the climate diplomacy required to deliver a successful COP26. At the same time, as hosts, we cannot overlook the impact of domestic decisions on the outcome of the conference. As Opposition Members have argued time and again, the UK will not be able to play its full part in building and sustaining the requisite momentum ahead of COP26 if we are not seen to lead by example. Yet, whether it is acquiescing to the opening of a new deep coalmine in Cumbria—
Chris Green
That coal is vital for the steel industry. If we do not produce it domestically, we import it from abroad. How does that influence the hon. Gentleman’s decision? We could have 2,500 jobs in the UK, but the carbon emissions are the same either way.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman is correct that we will need coking coal for UK steel for some years to come, but I am sure he will know that UK steel must go net zero by 2035 and less than 15% of the coking coal produced, if that, will be used for UK steel. What he misses is that the cumulative emissions from the mine will have a material impact on UK emissions, on our net zero target and on our credibility and reputation ahead of this crucial conference. I do not think the business case, let alone the emissions reduction case, stacks up.
The coalmine in Cumbria is just one example. By allowing UKEF to provide financial support for overseas fossil fuel projects when a consultation on ending the practice altogether is under way, or having a Budget, as many speakers have said in this debate, in which climate was, frankly, an afterthought—many other examples have been cited by hon. Members—the Government continue to fall short when it comes to domestic policy.
Our credibility as COP26 hosts requires the Government not only to bring forward, before 1 November, a comprehensive plan for achieving net zero but to take concrete steps now to get on track for that legally binding target, to ensure that decarbonisation and a green recovery are a top priority as we ease coronavirus restrictions and rebuild our economy, and to cease taking decisions such as the one cited by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) that expose our country to charges of hypocrisy on the international stage ahead of this critical summit.
In responding to this very welcome debate, I hope the COP26 President will assure hon. and right hon. Members that he understands the very real impact of domestic policy choices on the summit and that he is personally doing all he can to ensure the Government take the steps necessary to put their house in order in the months that remain.
This decade is the crucial decade for climate action. As the landmark 1.5° report published by the UN some years ago made clear:
“The next few years are probably the most important in our history.”
COP26 is the first of only two ratchet points in this crucial decade. The decisions that are made in the lead-up to it and hopefully at it, in terms of extra ambition, will set the trajectory for climate action up to 2030.
We cannot squander the opportunity for transformational change that the summit presents. As the first country to industrialise, the world’s sixth-largest economy and its host, we cannot fail in our duty to do what is necessary to deliver success at that summit. That means threading climate throughout our diplomatic efforts: our approach to the G7 and G20, the Work Bank, the International Monetary Fund’s annual meetings, the plethora of international events that will take place over the next eight months and our economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, with resources to match. I will finish on this, Mr Deputy Speaker. It means the President—I know he is committed to his agenda—and his agenda having the necessary status within Government to deliver all that he needs to do at home and abroad.
COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
Climate change is the biggest challenge we face as a global community and we know that it does not take time off. Year after year, the world is experiencing the increasingly damaging effects of a rise in global temperatures. Last year was, on a par with 2016, the hottest year ever recorded. We witnessed wildfires blaze across Australia, Europe and the US west coast. We saw flooding and locusts destroying crops in east Africa. Earlier this year, Cyclone Ana hit Fiji, sending thousands fleeing to evacuation centres. Through my work on COP26, I have witnessed the devastating impacts of climate change: melting glaciers, sea level rises, crop degradation, deforestation and pollution choking some of the world’s greatest cities. I have spoken to the communities on the frontline of the fight against climate change. I have spoken to them about how their lives have been disrupted, how their livelihoods are threatened, how their homes are at risk. We cannot go on as we are.
I thank the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), for opening this debate on COP26, which we all want to see as a decisive and positive moment in the battle against climate change. He spoke with great eloquence, as have other right hon. and hon. Members. I want to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) and for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) for their very kind words. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and other colleagues for their offers of support on the road to COP26. I also thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) for offering the Opposition’s support as we go forward. What we all agree is that this is an issue that unites us. It unites us in a common mission to protect our planet and our people.
Tackling climate change is a clear priority for the Government. We were the first major economy in the world to legislate for net zero by 2050, and since 2000 we have decarbonised our economy faster than any other G20 country. Last year, the Prime Minister set out his 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution: a plan to cut emissions, but at the same time to create high-value green jobs and turbocharge the economy. As colleagues on both sides of the House have acknowledged, we have also set an ambitious and world-leading commitment to cut our own emissions by at least 68% by 2030 on the base year of 1990. Of course now, through our presidency of COP26, we have a unique opportunity to drive global ambition but also action.
Colleagues have raised a range of issues, and I would like to focus on three of the key topics that have come up. First, what are our aims for COP26? What are we planning to achieve? Secondly, do we have the resources to deliver? Thirdly, how are the practical planning and logistics for the event progressing?
I can tell the House that we have four key aims for COP26.We are asking nations: first, to commit to global net zero and, vitally, as colleagues have noted, to come forward with ambitious 2030 emissions reductions targets that align with net zero and keep the goal of limiting average global temperature rises to 1.5° within reach; secondly, to set out plans urgently to protect communities and natural habitats and to help them to adapt to the damaging effects of climate change; thirdly, to agree funding to support these aims, making good on the $100 billion commitment in public finances that was agreed at Paris and, of course, also unleashing private finance. I agree with colleagues when they say that the $100 billion figure is totemic. It is a matter of trust for vulnerable countries, for developing nations, and donor countries must deliver on that. At the end of this month, we will be holding a climate and development event. It will be a ministerial event, attended by Ministers from donor countries and from vulnerable countries, but it will also involve civil society, and we will talk about the issues around climate finance. Fourthly, we want to work to close off the outstanding elements of the Paris rulebook and accelerate delivery of the Paris goals through collaboration between Governments, businesses and civil society.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) mentioned article 6. He is absolutely right; it is one of the items that we will have to close off, as well as timelines for submitting further nationally determined contributions, reporting transparency, and, of course, delivering through the energy transition, nature and transport campaigns that we are running as part of COP26.
We have made progress to date. When the UK took on the COP presidency, less than 30% of global GDP was covered by net zero commitments. That figure stands at 70% today, and it includes Japan, South Korea, the USA and China. In December last year, the UK co-hosted the Climate Ambition Summit, with 75 world leaders making concrete commitments to tackling climate change. However, as hon. Members have noted, the UNFCCC NDC synthesis report, which was published last month, demonstrates that we have much, much more to do when it comes to these near-term emissions reductions targets.
Colleagues have rightly asked if we have adequate resources dedicated to the task in hand. In summary, the answer is yes. I am supported by the full weight of the British Government in this endeavour, with the Prime Minister leading from the front. He chairs the UK Government’s climate action strategy Cabinet Committee, which sets the UK’s path to net zero, and I chair the UK Government’s climate action implementation Cabinet Committee, which sets the UK’s delivery of its climate plans. This means that there is full Cabinet oversight of policy and delivery.
With regards to the resourcing of COP26, I can tell the House that there are over 200 posts in the COP26 unit, and a number of Departments have also created dedicated COP26 teams, including Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, all heads of mission have been instructed by the Foreign Secretary to make delivery of COP26 objectives a top priority. They are supported by our overseas network of over 430 climate and energy attachés. This is the world’s first diplomatic network dedicated to this agenda.
I, of course, am now working full time on COP26. I have personally engaged with Ministers in more than 50 Governments, including recently with India’s Prime Minister Modi, US special envoy John Kerry, who was here on Monday for discussions with us, and China’s special envoy for climate change, Minister Xie Zhenhua.
Of course, we will work with like-minded colleagues around the world to deliver at Glasgow. I speak regularly with negotiating group chairs and chief negotiators, the United Nations, development banks, civil society groups and business. In recent weeks, I have also made a number of international visits, where I have always felt well supported by the UK Government network. All in all, we are well resourced for COP.
Turning to event logistics and planning, COP26, as colleagues have noted, will be the biggest international summit that the UK has ever hosted. It might be useful if I explain to the House how the event will work. It will be delivered across two sites. The Scottish events campus will be the United Nations-managed space. It will host the formal negotiations and will see delegates from 197 parties come together, alongside accredited observer organisations.
On the other side of the River Clyde, in the Glasgow Science Centre, the UK Government will host a platform for the general public and stakeholders to have their voices heard through events, exhibitions, workshops and talks that promote dialogue, awareness, education and commitments in the climate change space. As part of our preparations, Glasgow City Council has launched a host city volunteer programme for COP26. I can tell the House that it has received an overwhelmingly positive response, with more than 7,000 applications to date, far exceeding the 1,000 volunteers that we need.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) will be pleased to note that through the “Together for our planet” campaign, which we launched last November, we will work with partners to inspire the public across the UK to be more engaged in climate action in the run-up to COP26. I agree that we cannot have an event that is seen by the general public as one where world leaders fly in and fly out without any connection to the lives of people across our country and, indeed, across the world.
I have also established an international civil society and youth advisory council to support our COP preparations and to ensure that we deliver an inclusive COP. We are progressing planning for an in-person event, with consideration of how we can best use technology to increase inclusion and sustainability. In addition, robust contingency plans for the range of covid-19 scenarios are being prepared, so that we can rapidly adapt were it to prove necessary.
My team has regular engagement with the Scottish Government and Scottish operational delivery partners through a monthly operational delivery board. We have a joint delivery framework that has been agreed with partners, including the Scottish Government, endorsing an inclusive, all-UK approach to COP26. I have also invited Climate Change Ministers from the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to participate in a devolved Administrations group to ensure effective engagement and collaboration on COP26. I can confirm that the next meeting is scheduled for later this month.
A number of colleagues raised the issue of budgets. Discussions on costs for COP26 are ongoing and final budgets are yet to be confirmed, but let me be very clear to the House that we will ensure that the right resources are made available for this summit. Of course, we also want to deliver the event in a manner that represents value for money for the taxpayer, and we are following robust procurement, assurance and peer review processes.
We have also secured sponsorship to take the cost burden off the taxpayer. Our current principal partners are SSE, ScottishPower, Sky, Sainsbury’s, NatWest Group, National Grid and Hitachi, and we are actively seeking more. We will ensure that this event is safe, secure, sustainable and inclusive, and above all that it leaves a lasting legacy in the United Kingdom, allowing Glasgow to flourish as the host city.
I very much welcome the interest from hon. Members and Select Committees, and of course from all the all-party parliamentary groups that have shown an interest in COP. I think that is right and proper, and I have said that I will engage as much as I can with parliamentarians and all-party groups and work with them so that we can bring about success at COP26.
In conclusion, I do not underestimate the challenge of delivering on all our goals for COP26. That is why we are putting the full weight of the UK Government, working with partners around the world, behind our efforts. I also want to see the green thread of climate action running deep through our G7 presidency and, indeed, through the range of international events that will happen between now and COP26. As an international community, we must deliver at Glasgow, for the sake of our generation and future generations.
Darren Jones
I thank the COP26 President for his full response, for which I am grateful in so many ways. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee and the Liaison Committee for granting this important debate, and I am grateful for the contributions from so many right hon. and hon. Members this evening.
In the time allotted to me, I will reflect briefly on some of the major issues that came up. There was a clear consensus across the House on the urgency of bridging the gap between political announcements and actual delivery in countries around the world. I was encouraged to hear the COP26 President’s confirmation of dedicated climate attachés in the Foreign Office. As many have said, the concept of a climate diplomat will not go away after COP26; it will stay with us in many countries around the world as we continue to grapple with this issue in the decades ahead.
COP26 is an opportunity for the UK not just to persuade countries to do the right thing but to show them how we have done it ourselves. For all the criticisms—I will come back to some of those in a second—we have made great progress in the UK, especially in decarbonisation of power, something that we can show other countries around the world how to achieve through our companies, our innovators and our engineers.
That could be helpful, I might suggest, for countries that are perhaps dragging their feet a little on NDCs. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), mentioned Australia. I should declare an interest, since I am married to an Australian and half my family lives there. Australia needs to make more progress in its climate commitments. While we are negotiating trade deals and perhaps showing the way in which companies, British and otherwise, can make a difference, we might want to couple that climate diplomacy with—that old phrase—industrial strategy as an opportunity for both countries to take forward.
The commitment today to climate aid was also very important, and it will be important even after covid. I know that it is difficult for wealthy nations, having borrowed so much money to deal with covid, to make climate aid commitments, but there is no choice; we have to do it. Indeed, poorer nations are in more difficult situations than wealthier nations, even in the context of covid spending. They are unable just to borrow on international markets to pay, and it is therefore more important than it was pre-pandemic for wealthy nations to step up to their obligations.
Of course, a number of points were also made about the UK’s own domestic performance, which is not directly related to our delivery of COP26 but is important symbolically, to show the world that, as president of COP, we lead with our action as well as our commitments. Here I wish to comment on coalmines in the UK. I agree entirely that the coalmine proposed in Cumbria is not about heating. Indeed, we have enormous challenges on decarbonising heat in the UK, be it hydrogen, heat pumps or heat networks, since we have so much progress to make and so little finance earmarked to make that transition. The steel industry—a foundational industry that I support very much in the UK—is going through a period of transition and needs to go through the net zero transition. That would be a good example, albeit following the scrapping of the industrial strategy, of how Government action, in partnership with industry, can facilitate the net zero transition even in difficult circumstances. I am afraid that we seem to have been missing that opportunity.
There is clearly cross-party support in the House for us to achieve our ambitions at COP26, including from Select Committees and all-party parliamentary groups. I thank my fellow Committee Chairs who spoke in the debate. Our Committees have agreed to collaborate on this issue to ensure full coverage and support for the Government in the delivery of COP26. All of us look forward to supporting the President and his team and hopefully attending COP26 in Glasgow in November, then celebrating the success of that conference as we move from a commitment in Paris to delivery on the ground.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54(4)).
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With the leave of the House, I will put the Question on motions 3 to 7 together.
Supplementary Estimates 2020-21 (Army) Vote A
Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2021, modifications in the maximum numbers in the Reserve Land Forces set out in Supplementary Votes A 2020-21, HC 1126, be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1 and 3 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Supplementary Estimates 2020-21 (Air) Vote A
Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2021, a number not exceeding 36,400 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service.
Estimates 2021-22 (Navy) Vote A
Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2022, a number not exceeding 38,900 all ranks be maintained for Naval and Marine Service and that numbers in the Reserve Naval and Marines Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2021-22, HC 1125.
Estimates 2021-22 (Army) Vote A
Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2022, a number not exceeding 108,420 all ranks be maintained for Army Service and that numbers in the Reserve Land Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2021-22, HC 1125.
Estimates 2021-22 (Air) Vote A
Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2022, a number not exceeding 36,400 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service and that numbers in the Reserve Air Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2021-22, HC 1125.—(Scott Mann.)
Estimates, Excesses, 2018-19
[Relevant document: Sixth Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, Excess Votes 2018-19, HC 243.]
Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2019:
resources, not exceeding £312,093,000, be authorised to make good excesses for use for current purposes as set out in Statement of Excesses 2019-20 and Late Statement of Excesses 2018–19, HC 1229.—(Scott Mann.)
Estimates, Excesses, 2019-20
[Relevant document: Forty-fourth Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, Excess Votes 2019-20, HC 1205.]
Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2020:
(1) resources, not exceeding £8,280,607,000, be authorised to make good excesses for use for current purposes as set out in Statement of Excesses 2019-20 and Late Statement of Excesses 2018–19, HC 1229,
(2) resources, not exceeding £32,332,000, be authorised to make good excesses for use for capital purposes as set out in Statement of Excesses 2019-20 and Late Statement of Excesses 2018–19, HC 1229, and
(3) a sum, not exceeding £3,711,646,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses on the use of resources authorised by Parliament as set out in Statement of Excesses 2019-20 and Late Statement of Excesses 2018–19, HC 1229.—(Scott Mann.)
Supplementary Estimates 2020-21
Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2021:
(1) further resources, not exceeding £265,361,609,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1168, HC 1215, HC 1227, HC 1231 and HC 1251,
(2) further resources, not exceeding £40,953,201,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
(3) a further sum, not exceeding £174,422,672,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Scott Mann.)
Estimates, Vote on Account 2021-22
Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2022:
(1) resources, not exceeding £345,682,776,000, be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1167, HC 1171, HC 1214, HC 1228, HC 1230, HC 1234 and HC 1254,
(2) resources, not exceeding £53,780,396,000, be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
(3) a sum, not exceeding £364,923,586,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Scott Mann.)
Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions relating to Supplementary Estimates 2020-21, Excesses 2018-2019, Excesses 2019-20 and Vote on Account 2020-21;
That the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Steve Barclay, Jesse Norman, John Glen and Kemi Badenoch bring in the Bill.
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading
Jesse Norman accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the years ending with 31 March 2019, 31 March 2020, 31 March 2021 and 31 March 2022; to authorise the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund for the years ending 31 March 2020, 31 March 2021 and 31 March 2022; and to appropriate the supply authorised by this Act for the years ending with 31 March 2019, 31 March 2020 and 31 March 2021.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 273).
Business without Debate
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Protection of monuments of Captain James Cook
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
We should celebrate and protect our country’s amazing heritage. People across the Tees Valley are incredibly proud of Captain James Cook, and 2,500 people have signed this decision.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland,
Declares that the achievements of Captain James Cook in the fields of science, exploration and cartography are of immense historic significance and are rightly commemorated by a number of much-loved statues and monuments across Middlesbrough, the Tees Valley and North Yorkshire.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that those monuments and sites which commemorate Captain James Cook are protected against harm or removal.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002651]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before the Adjournment debate, can I ask the Serjeant at Arms—we will not suspend—to sanitise the Government Dispatch Box to ensure that it is covid-friendly? [Interruption.] I know, if we had a potter’s wheel at this moment in time, we would be doing that, but we just want to make certain. Colonel Bob, if you could take your seat—[Interruption.] There you are, entertainment as well. Fantastic—I thank the Serjeant at Arms for doing that.
Nord Stream 2 Pipeline
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a gas pipeline being constructed on the bottom of the Baltic sea between Russia and Germany. It is bypassing all of our allies in central and eastern Europe, fellow NATO partners that have in the past been put under the most extraordinary pressure by the Russians over energy supplies. That is why I am so concerned about this project for the security of NATO and our responsibilities to our allies in central and eastern Europe.
Although it is not possible for many Members of Parliament to be in the Chamber this evening, we have written to the Prime Minister in the past. Over 35 Conservative Members of Parliament have co-signed a letter on this issue to the Prime Minister, and there are many more in other parties who also have grave concerns about this project.
I can understand why, during the Brexit negotiations and indeed when we were negotiating a trade agreement with the European Union, this Government may have expressed a certain amount of caution on this issue. Taking into consideration the extraordinary power of Germany within the European Union and the extraordinary power that Germany has over the European Commission, it may not have been wise for the United Kingdom at that juncture to follow our American partners and others in agitating on this issue.
Nevertheless, that time has now passed, and we are now an independent sovereign nation state. We are also a permanent member of the UN Security Council—a privilege peculiar to only five countries in the world—as well as the fifth largest economy in the world and arguably the strongest military power on our continent. With those extraordinary privileges and attributes for Britain come extraordinary responsibility, and that is why I believe this Government must now take a lead on our continent in having this project stopped.
The project is a threat to NATO security and cohesion. Now, with North Macedonia joining our alliance, we have 30 members of this most successful military alliance. I think it is like being a member of a special club with a gold American Express card. This is one of the most successful military alliances in the world, but we do not just have responsibility in protecting our fellow NATO members from invasion; we also have a duty of care, in the letter and the spirit of our obligations under NATO, to ensure that our NATO partners in central and eastern Europe are not blackmailed and intimidated by the Russians over energy supplies. The Americans understand this. They understand the great threat to NATO, but also to the continent of Europe, in allowing this project to come to fruition. It is very close to completion, but it still can be stopped.
I know there are many here who do not particularly respect former President Trump, but he said the wisest thing that I have heard so far when he sat at a table with the Secretary-General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, and said to them, “You expect us to send troops to Poland and the Baltic states, and to protect you. You expect us to spend hundreds of billions of pounds every decade in protecting your continent, yet you—the Secretary-General of NATO—are allowing one NATO partner,” namely Germany, “to, for its own reasons, create this direct link with Russia, giving the Russians an umbilical cord for the export of their gas.” We have all heard about the terrible trouble the Russian economy is in already. This is an umbilical cord from the heart of Europe to Russia, giving it the extraordinary opportunity of not only exporting to Europe, but putting our NATO allies under threat.
Several hon. Members rose—
Daniel Kawczynski
I will just make a couple of extra points, and then I will give way.
Following President Trump, we now have President Biden, who has appointed as his deputy Secretary of State —one of the most powerful positions in Washington—a lady called Wendy Sherman. In the Senate nomination hearings, when she was being assessed by the other Senators, she said that the Biden Administration would do
“whatever is lawful to stop the pipeline”.
The Americans are our closest security and military partners, and as a fellow permanent member of the UN Security Council, if they are prepared to take the lead on our continent on this hugely strategically important issue, we must join them. I have written to Senator Ted Cruz from Texas this week, who is the leading proponent in the American Senate of stopping this project. He and 40 other Republican Senators have written to the President, calling for the Americans to implement sanctions against any company and any individual involved in this project. The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, Bob Menendez, a Democrat, has also spoken against this project.
I just want to say one thing before I take interventions. As an independent sovereign nation with an ability to influence our continent now in an unprecedented way, unfettered by the communal constraints of the European Union, if we now join the Americans as two permanent members of the UN Security Council, I think we could possibly stop this project. So many companies involved in the construction of this pipeline, whether Swiss companies or others, are so frightened of the prospect of sanctions against them that they are likely to pull out of the project, and this project will be stopped. Britain is at the forefront in this see-saw between Germany and Russia, and many of our NATO partners in central and eastern Europe and the Americans. It will be Britain that ultimately decides which side of this extraordinary debate wins out and guarantees the security of our NATO partners.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having brought this issue forward: this is the place for these decisions to be debated. The foreign policy issues surrounding Nord Stream are deep and complex, as he has referred to. I fully agree that we must be wary of reliance on unreliable states. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the recent reports of state-sponsored attacks on protesters in Russia are a sobering reminder, if one is needed, that there is more of a cost to be paid from being in thrall to Russia than money?
Daniel Kawczynski
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman, and will talk about some of the extraordinary behaviour of Russia in its own neighbourhood and domestically within its own jurisdiction, and how it is undermining and subverting democracy in its own country.
When I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee I called for dialogue with the Russians. I still stand by that. I think we have to talk to these people, but we have to do so from a position of strength. Giving them this umbilical cord to the heart of Europe undermines that negotiating position. One thing we know about the Russians was taught to us by Reagan and Thatcher—Thatcher invited Gorbachev to Chequers in December 1984, the first western leader to invite him for discussions. They taught us that we can only negotiate with those people from a position of strength. Divided among us, they will eat us for breakfast.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I agree with every word the hon. Gentleman has said in the debate and I congratulate him on securing it. It is a geostrategic mistake for Germany to encourage this, and we need to get the French on board. If we have three out of the five Security Council members, that is an even stronger position. I am anxious that the UK Government seem to be going a bit quiet on this issue, as they have on the imprisonment of Alexei Navalny, which is yet another flagrant abuse of human rights in Russia.
Daniel Kawczynski
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and agree with every word that he has said. Later in my speech, I will chide my own Government. They have been almost mute on this issue, and that position does not reflect the urgency of the situation and the responsibility that our country has.
Countries in central and eastern Europe are not just leaving this all to us to deal with. They have created the Three Seas initiative; 12 countries, all of whom are members of the European Union, and all of whom are members of NATO—apart from Austria. It is a regional, relatively homogeneous bloc. The 12 member countries are on the frontline with Russia. My office and I have spent the past few weeks interviewing all the ambassadors from these 12 countries. We have interviewed 10 out of 12 so far, and we will be writing a report for Members of Parliament about the initiative. These countries are trying to create strategic investments across the whole bloc to safeguard individual members from undue Russian pressure.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The strategic problem is this, is it not? By putting the Nord Stream 2 pipeline straight into Germany, Germany can guarantee its gas supplies from Russia. On the other hand, these countries in eastern Europe—the Three Seas, as it were—could be blackmailed by Russia and picked off from the rest of NATO. That is the strategic problem with Nord Stream 2.
Daniel Kawczynski
My hon. Friend, who is such an excellent speaker with so much experience in military matters, has managed in a few words to sum up the whole situation more succinctly than I could in half an hour. I am grateful to him.
Poland and Croatia have been the instigators of the Three Seas initiative. Both countries have built liquified gas terminals on their coastlines. The whole thing about the Three Seas initiative is that the investments seek to create additional pipelines so that more of this liquified gas can be sent inland to landlocked neighbours and NATO partners. Poland is also buying a huge amount of liquified gas from America and from Norway, and has invested billions of dollars in its liquified gas terminal at Świnoujście on the Baltic coast—I would like to see Hansard deal with the spelling of that. I shall help them with the spelling of Świnoujście. Is that not an amazing example, Mr Deputy Speaker? If a country is a member of NATO, that exclusive club or organisation that has not lost a square inch of territory since its inception 70 years ago, surely the next step should be to do as Poland is doing, which is to buy gas from America or Norway, even if it costs a little bit more, so that it is not dependent on Russian gas supplies.
I would like the Minister to give me an assurance that the Foreign Office is working hand in glove with the Department for International Trade to assess what opportunities there are for British companies to participate in the construction of these pipelines within the Three Seas jurisdiction, and to assist and invest in these liquified gas terminals on the coastlines of the Adriatic sea, the Black Sea and the Baltic sea so that we have some of the greatest energy companies in the world. That is important not only for British strategic and financial interests, but in helping our fellow NATO partners in central and eastern Europe.
Daniel Kawczynski
I give way to the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Dr Lewis
I wonder what reasons Germany has given, at least publicly, for its behaviour, given the overwhelming case against Nord Stream 2 outlined by my hon. Friend. I cannot help being put in mind of that famous quotation, which may or may not have correctly been attributed to Lenin, that the west and the capitalists
“will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
Daniel Kawczynski
I could not have put the situation better. Germany, in a rather peculiar statement the other day, did not really explain why it is building this pipeline. Clearly, it is a stitch-up between the Russians and the Germans. They do not want to rely on the transportation of gas through Belarus, Ukraine or Poland—countries that the Russians have problems with. Russia does not want to rely on exporting its main commodity through those countries; it wants to have a direct link under the sea, so that Germany, irrespective of its obligations to NATO, can have that direct access to Russian gas.
Daniel Kawczynski
I will not give way for the moment.
It is a very selfish act on Germany’s part and inconsistent with NATO membership. The Germans have also said that it is something to do with their obligations to Russia in terms of reparations from the second world war. They need to help the Russians with the construction of this pipeline out of some sense of duty over war reparations. If that is the case, Poland is still waiting for its war reparations 80 years on.
I am very grateful to have secured this Adjournment debate, but it should not be for me, a Back-Bench Tory MP, to raise this issue. It should be the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary explaining the threat of this project to our electorate. I suspect that, if most of us went back to our constituencies and started talking about the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, not many people would be cognisant of it. It should be the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary who are leading the way in explaining to our citizens the threat that this project poses to our allies and, ultimately, to us. One thing that we have learned from history is that if there is instability in central and eastern Europe—if these countries are threatened, blackmailed or invaded—which country always get sucked into it? It is the United Kingdom. We have seen too much instability on our continent to allow Britain to be sucked into that. We need a statement from the British Government that we will implement sanctions on every company and individual involved in this project and it must start with the former German Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, who was earning an eye-watering salary at the very pinnacle of this organisation—
Daniel Kawczynski
Yes, Gazprom, as my right hon. Friend says.
Germany is behaving in a selfish and dangerous way and in a way that is incompatible with its responsibilities to NATO. As I have also said, let us talk to the Russians, but let us do it from a position of strength.
We have all seen—the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has been one of the most vocal on this—the outrageous behaviour of the Russians within the neighbourhood, whether in Georgia, the butchery that took place in South Ossetia, in Ukraine, or the ongoing deliberate violation of the Baltic states’ maritime and airspace. I went to Ukraine when I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee. We went to Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine. I have never seen anything like it in my 15 years as a Member of Parliament. It was like being on the face of the moon. Everything was destroyed. Nothing was left standing. It was a wasteland. We on the Foreign Affairs Committee saw what the Russians are capable of in Ukraine.
The two countries that this pipeline will violate most are indeed Ukraine and Belarus. The Government are trumpeting their agreement with the Ukrainians on the Government website, saying just this month,
“UK and Ukraine sign Political, Free Trade and Strategic Partnership”.
“A strategic partnership” with Ukraine—there is a photograph of the Prime Minister with the President of Ukraine signing the agreement, and it says:
“UK cooperation in political, security and foreign matters with Ukraine”.
How can we sign a strategic partnership with the Ukrainians while at the same time kicking the chair from underneath them, by allowing the one last power that they have over the Russians—the fact that they have to export their gas from Ukraine—not to happen? This agreement it is not going to be worth the paper it is written on, if this project is allowed to come to a conclusion.
Daniel Kawczynski
In a second.
Let me turn to Belarus. We have all seen on our television screens the brave young men and women fighting against the brutal dictator in Minsk. A few years ago, I went on a parliamentary delegation to Minsk, where I saw at first hand how this brutal authoritarian regime suppresses its own people. But one day, Lukashenko will be gone and this will be a new, independent, sovereign fledgling state. Can hon. Members imagine in two, three, four or five years’ time—whenever it is—when the democratic Government of Belarus are seeking finally to join the rest of Europe as a sovereign state, what position they will be in if this gas does not have to go through their country and just goes straight to Germany under the sea? It will be the greatest impediment to the democratisation of Belarus, and we have a duty and responsibility to that country as a fellow European partner.
I must now conclude. By allowing this pipeline, we not only betray our NATO allies; we empower Russia in an unprecedented way to manipulate Belarus and Ukraine. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my genuine fears and the fears of many colleagues from across the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for securing this debate, and for his ongoing work on European energy security, including as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Poland. I am also grateful for the contributions to this debate that he and other hon. Members have made this evening. In the time I have, I will try to respond to all the points raised.
The resumption of construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline after a one-year hiatus has understandably rekindled interests in this project. As many hon. Members are aware, the UK Government have repeatedly aired our significant concerns about Nord Stream 2, its implications for European energy security, and its impact on Ukraine and other transit countries. When complete, Nord Stream 2 will double the Russian gas capacity flowing directly into Germany. Alongside the southern TurkStream route, this will largely replace the need for Russian gas to transit Ukraine.
The Government’s concerns about the pipeline are a matter of public record, and we continue to raise them publicly and in private with key allies. It is important to reiterate that Nord Stream 2 would not affect the UK’s gas supply. The UK gas market is one of the most liquid and developed in the world and our gas comes from diverse and reliable sources. Most of the gas that we use comes from our own production and reliable suppliers such as Norway. We receive a small amount of liquefied natural gas from Russia, but last year it accounted for less than 3% of our total gas supply.
Although Nord Stream 2 would not directly impact on our energy security, it could have serious implications for central and eastern European countries. Last year, around one third of European gas came via Russian gas pipelines. Some European countries are nearly wholly dependent on Russian gas. This reliance on a single source raises serious concerns about energy security. Furthermore, we do not believe that Nord Stream 2 is necessary to meet future European gas demand. There is sufficient existing pipeline infrastructure, including through Ukraine and Poland, for Russia to meet its European supply commitments.
There are also big questions about the need for Nord Stream 2 in a decarbonised future. Although the UK and European countries will continue to need natural gas for years to come, we are increasingly using energy from renewable sources, and we need to work to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from the entire energy system in order to meet our net zero targets.
As I have said, the potential impact of Nord Stream 2 on Ukraine is particularly worrying. Ukraine hosts the largest existing pipeline network for Russian gas, and transit fees have historically made up a significant proportion of Ukraine’s GDP. Nord Stream 2 would divert supplies away from Ukraine, with significant consequences for its economy. It could also have significant security implications. The transit of Russian gas through Ukraine is regarded as a deterrent against further Russian aggression, so is a vital part of Ukraine’s national security.
Wendy Morton
I am going to continue as I am conscious that I do not have much time. If I have time at the end, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.
It is positive that Naftogaz and Gazprom signed a gas-transit agreement at the end of 2019—it helped to avoid disruption at the time—and we welcome the role that Germany and the EU played in facilitating the negotiations. However, that agreement provides certainty only through to 2024; after that, there is greater uncertainty.
I reiterate the UK Government’s long-standing and unwavering commitment to Ukraine. We are one of Ukraine’s strongest supporters and are providing political and practical support to strengthen its sovereignty and resilience. On energy specifically, we are helping Ukraine to reform its energy market, working closely with the Ministry of Energy and the Ukrainian regulator.
I know that some ask whether the UK could be doing more to oppose Nord Stream 2, and my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham has put forward some interesting proposals. The UK welcomes the efforts of the three seas initiative to promote co-operation and development across central and eastern Europe, and we are open to the possibility of expanding the UK’s interaction with that group. I reassure Members that we will continue to share our concerns about Nord Stream 2 with key partners. It is our strong belief that we should be working to reduce reliance on any single gas supplier, and the dependency and leverage that can come with it. To counteract the risks associated with Nord Stream 2, it is essential that European countries diversify their energy supplies.
I was glad to visit Poland in October last year to discuss the need for energy transformation and a just transition, including with a business audience at the Wrocław energy congress. Since that time, Poland has proposed an ambitious energy plan and agreed on the EU’s target of at least a 55% reduction in emissions by 2030. We will continue to work with it to achieve ambitious climate and energy goals. However, with regard to Nord Stream 2, it is also important to recognise Germany’s sovereign right to formulate its own energy policy. Nord Stream 2 is highly contentious, but we would not want the debate over it to risk undermining the co-ordinated response by allies to wider Russian malign activity.
I fully recognise the legitimate concerns that hon. Members have raised today. Nord Stream 2 poses a threat to European energy security and the interests of existing transit countries. At a time when Europe should be diversifying and decarbonising its energy supplies, Nord Stream 2 risks entrenching European dependency on Russian gas for decades to come, increasing Russia’s ability to use energy as a political tool. For these reasons, the UK remains opposed to the pipeline and we will continue to raise our concerns with key partners. We will also continue to support initiatives that strengthen and diversify the European energy market.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Registration of Marriages Regulations 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members that they can only sit in the places that are clearly marked, that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee, unless, of course, you are speaking, and that Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to Hansard’s email address.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Registration of Marriages Regulations 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. The regulations amend the Marriage Act 1949 and will reform the way in which marriages are registered in future. They can be moved thanks to the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc.) Act 2019, which my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has joined the Committee today, so successfully piloted through Parliament.
The regulations enable the introduction of a schedule system for the registration of marriages in England and Wales by allowing powers to reform some quite elderly primary legislation. For background, a schedule system is already in place in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. When civil partnerships were introduced in England and Wales in 2005, the opportunity was taken to modernise the registration process and use a schedule-based system.
For clarity, couples will sign a marriage schedule at their marriage ceremony instead of a paper marriage register, and all marriages will be registered by registration officers in a single electronic marriage register. That will remove the requirement for the 84,000 paper registers currently used in registry offices and around 30,000 religious buildings across England and Wales.
The regulations provide the opportunity to modernise not only the registration process from a technical point of view, but the marriage entry itself to allow for the details of both parents of the couple to be recorded instead of just the father’s name and occupation, as is currently the case. Moving to a schedule-based system is the most cost-effective way to achieve the change and will make the system of registration more secure and efficient.
The regulations also amend the seldom used Marriage of British Subjects (Facilities) Acts 1915 and 1916 so that they no longer apply in England and Wales. They also make a consequential amendment under section 5 of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordinations (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 to amend the 1949 Act to specify the evidence that must be provided by an individual when giving a notice of marriage for immigration purposes.
Much of the regulations relate to the technical process of switching to a digital register, but the most talked-about aspect will be the change to what is actually placed on the register of marriage. The significance is not lost on me as a Minister or personally. When Hazel and I married in June 2017, we sadly could not be joined at the service by my mother or her father as they had both passed away a few years before. My dad and Hazel’s mum could be part of the day by sharing it with us physically. Hazel’s dad was part of it by appearing on the marriage certificate. There was, of course, one person missing. Once the regulations are in force, no one else will be missed out on their children’s wedding day.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Not for the first time in my political career, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. It is certainly a pleasure, following the Minister’s comments, to have a working mother in the Chair.
The Opposition welcome the modernising of the system that allows a couple’s mothers’ and fathers’ details to be documented, alongside the flexibility for changes when they are needed in future. Modernising, from a technological perspective and a value perspective—the changes mean a marked decrease in costs—is welcome, but when it comes to gender equality, we do not just welcome it; we are very happy to see it.
For me, I suppose that this means that I will appear, if my children ever get married, on their marriage certificates. I did not think that that mattered to me particularly until I was told that I would not be on them and that my husband would, especially when I think my job is better—I want it on their marriage certificates. The change is much welcomed.
On Monday, it was International Women’s Day, a day when, across the globe, we celebrate the progress made in the quest for gender equality, as well as remember how far we have to go. The delegated legislation means that both parents’ names and occupations will be recorded as part of the marriage. That omission until now reminds me of a fundamental of policy and politics—that we only make a note of, a legal record of, or count the things that we care about. I presume that the old marriage registration system did not require or make note of the name or job of the mother because, as a society, we saw it as not important, not worth acknowledging and not worth the paper it would have been written on. I am sad to say that this fundamental still rings true in other areas. There are many examples where we do not count, record or make note of the lives and experiences of women adequately. I hope that today begins progress in other areas.
I also want to flag the length of time it has taken to respond to the pressure from the public to bring forward the reform. The online petition from 2014 attracted 70,000 signatures. The delay of seven years again reminds me of the slow progress in so many areas in the fight for gender equality and justice. In December 2018, the World Economic Forum reported that it will take 202 years to close the gender pay gap, but of course we are not currently bothering to count that either.
The Opposition do not oppose this legislation. We welcome the digital modernisation and immigration alterations and of course the progress on making mothers’ lives and work matter. This Opposition mother just wishes that it did not always take so long for us working mothers to be noticed.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be here on the latest stage of the journey that started with my private Member’s Bill, which reached the ballot in 2017, and I am grateful to the Minister for namechecking it. I was slightly disappointed not to be told about the Committee, let alone not to be put on it. It is only through the courtesy of one of the civil servants who dealt with my Bill that I found out it was happening today, which is odd.
I will make some general points and then specific queries about the regulations. The first question, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, is: why has this taken so long? The four main elements of the Bill came together in 2017, but there has long been a campaign to change marriage registration for the first time since 1837 in England to enable both parents to be included on a marriage register. That is not radical; most people asked, “Doesn’t that happen already?” The trouble is that most people do not find out until the parents, usually with some nice music playing in the background, are invited by the presiding vicar to go to wherever the register is being signed. Then the mother is—in some cases, physically—restrained from adding her signature to the marriage document and is told, “Sorry, you’re not allowed.” Fortunately, when I got married, we were forewarned, but there was a double insult: my father’s signature appeared twice on my marriage certificate because he was also the presiding vicar. That doubled the insult to mothers and mothers-in-law.
The position needed changing and we all agreed that it was an anachronism. However, the Bill became an Act in February 2019 and law after Royal Assent last May. The position should have changed soon after that. Indeed, the Act includes a sunset clause, which provided that if the changes were not made in just over a year, the legislation would fall and we would have to start all over again. Why, therefore, has this taken so long? The legislation is not new and has been round the houses, helped by the former Member for Meriden, our colleague Dame Caroline Spelman, the Bishop of St Albans, who had a parallel Bill in the House of Lords, and others.
There are four main sections of the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc.) Act 2019. The regulations deal with only two and put them into law.
I am delighted that the extension of civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples became a thing on 31 December 2019. Fifteen months on—I gather on 4 May—the second element of the Act will come into law. There are two outstanding elements and I wonder if the Minister can comment on that.
There is a commitment to amend the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 so that stillbirths can be investigated by a coroner. There is widespread support for that. It is a cross-departmental function, but despite our constantly badgering the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health and Social Care, there is still no sign of that coming forward. Yet the case of babies dying in questionable circumstances in hospitals has become more urgent. That is why, with a lot of support, coroners will, I hope, be given that power to investigate. Perhaps we can have a progress report on that.
The fourth element of the legislation was a baby loss review, which the Department of Health and Social Care commissioned. I sat on the working party with the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and many professionals. That Committee has not sat for two years and the report has never been published. We considered whether we could register children who were stillborn before the arbitrary and artificial existing 24-week threshold. Anybody who is born before 24 weeks just does not count. If the Minister can tell me about progress on that, I will be grateful.
The Minister rightly said that at last we can have mothers on the marriage certificate. Where do the regulations state that? I have been through the heavy-duty documents—and I am no expert—but which regulations actually give authority for wedding registers to contain the names of mothers and for hard copies to be signed by mothers of the happy couple?
Let me deal with the detail of the regulations. In part 3, regulation 5(3)(1) states that
“the superintendent registrar to whom notice of marriage is given must display in some conspicuous place in their office, for 28 successive days beginning with the day after the day on which the notice was recorded in the marriage register… the notice of marriage,…the particulars given in the notice, in an approved electronic form”.
I do not quite understand that. We are making the register electronic, so where does a hard-copy notice still have to be displayed? Why cannot it all be done electronically, given that we are moving into the 21st century with some of our procedures? There seems to be a paradox there.
The regulations refer to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Scotland does not have to pass such regulations because such details have sensibly been recorded there for the last couple of centuries. For some reason, England and Wales have been out of kilter with the rest of the United Kingdom. Do the regulations bring us completely in line with the existing procedures in Scotland and Northern Ireland? Is there some difference or nuance? How would it apply? There are some fairly opaque details in the regulations about how they apply to somebody from Scotland marrying somebody from England. If the couple gets married in Scotland as opposed to England, are there potential anomalies? Could we find that a Scottish mother-in-law at a wedding in York of an English son-in-law will be told, “Sorry, you’re Scottish so it doesn’t count”? I am sure that that is not the case, but after all the effort and such a long campaign, I want to make sure that no anomalies involving certain parts of the United Kingdom will crop up at a crucial moment during a wedding ceremony.
In regulation 7, new section 53B of the 1949 Act—I am sure it is at the Minister’s fingertips—states:
“Before the marriage document is signed, the clergyman by whom the marriage is to be or has been solemnized”—
Will the Minister give a definition of “clergyman”? Again, I could not find it in the regulations. Who exactly is a “clergyman”, or a clergywoman—we have many of those these days, even in the Church of England? We need a definition of exactly who is covered by that definition.
New section 53C contains the first of many references to
“according to the usages of the Jews”.
I am sure it is my inexperience, but can the Minister explain that term? Does it apply to all traditional Jewish ceremonies or only some? I assume it is regularly used for proceedings in synagogues, but can we have some clarification, because it is not clear?
New section 53D covers how the procedure now happens physically. I think that was one of the sticking points with the Church of England. According to my understanding, in a wedding service in a Church of England church, when the wedding party moves to the signing ceremony, there will still be a hard-copy register, which lots of people can now sign. That is great. A certificate will be produced and it still has to be delivered to a registrar. An electronic record is made in parallel. Loosely, I think that that is now what happens. However, there was some dispute about the document still having to be delivered to the registrar or superintendent within a short time. I think, initially, a space of eight days was contemplated.
In normal circumstances, a bride and bridegroom might have better things to do in the first eight days of their marriage. Indeed, they may well be on honeymoon elsewhere. I hope that the position has now been rectified and that a couple are not expected to delay or cut short their honeymoon to deliver a piece of paper, which is still required even though we have moved to an electronic system. I think—again, it has not been explained to me, which would have been nice—that somebody can be nominated to deliver that piece of paper. Perhaps the Minister will clarify how someone can be nominated and the timescale for completing that process. Subsection (10)(a) uses the phrase
“as soon as reasonably practicable”,
but subsection (8)(b) says “within 8 days”. Again, some clarification would be helpful.
In terms of obligations on the church, place or body performing the solemnisation of the marriage, new section 53E(3) refers to the “relevant church official” on whom there are obligations to ensure that registration is made and notified. Who is the relevant church official? In most cases, people who are involved in churches other than the vicar are volunteers. Does the provision refer to a churchwarden? Does the relevant church official have to have a certain status? How are they nominated? What happens if they mess up? Who is responsible? Again, I could not find that in the explanatory memorandum.
I realise that I have given the Minister quite a few questions to cope with, so this is probably the final question. What happens to the existing hard-copy registers? We discussed the practical problems of moving to such a radical system of electronic records and mothers being able to sign a marriage certificate with clergy and others. Many churches—certainly old churches—have marriage register books that are sometimes centuries old. They are historical documents. I presume that they can still be used and will still be part of those churches’ fabric. I gather that in some cases, while we were waiting on these regulations, some vicars in the Church of England were forward looking and a nod was given from Lambeth Palace that mothers could sign the hard copy of the certificates and the register in church, even though there was no place for them. I think that practice has been going on in some cases, even though the regulations do not come into force until 4 May.
Is there any facility for this registration to be retrospective, at least going back to when the Bill itself became law, for those mothers who have signed a register, but, I presume, will not now be part of the new electronic record? That might be particularly poignant and touching—the Minister referred to his own case—where the mother is no longer with us. Can there be some sympathetic and pragmatic retrospective approach to enabling mothers to sign the register, at least to the time when the legislation went through, after which there was a good expectation that the Government would get on with producing the regulations, which are not that hard?
What will happen going forward to those registers? Churches can still use their hard-copy register, but it now has to be backed up with a specific certificate, it has to be presented to the superintendent and it goes on the electronic register in parallel.
There are many other questions I could raise, but in the interests of not detaining the Committee for too long—I am only too aware I have given the Minister quite a plateful—I will leave it there.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. The Minister will be relieved to hear that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has raised a number of the issues that I wanted to raise, so he will be spared a long speech.
The Minister covers the General Register Office, which is the same role I had 11 years ago when I was Minister. I was proud then to change the birth registration so that parents who are same-sex couples could be listed as parent/mother and parent on the register. Changing marriage registration is long overdue. I hear the frustration from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, and I commend him for his work on this issue, but I am aware that in the corridors of Whitehall, trying to get legislation to change marriage and birth registration is quite difficult, because nobody else sees it as a priority. It is really great that we are today finally getting mothers on the register.
I have a couple of quick questions about paper registers, which pick up on what the hon. Gentleman highlighted. The challenge of going digital is that, in terms of archiving, it can be very difficult. That recently came up when the Public Accounts Committee was looking at private finance initiatives, which are not that old. Some of the documents for those were on CD-ROMS. There are members of that Committee who do not know what a CD-ROM is. Will the Minister advise whether he has had any conversations with the National Archives about a plan to make sure that the digital register will be accessible for the long term? For those who do not have physical registers—some will not, because of where they choose to get married—there will not be a record. The hon. Gentleman highlighted the issue about existing paper registers. It would be helpful to have that as well.
The explanatory notes say that there has not been a formal consultation, but that the General Register Office has consulted the established churches across the UK and other religious groups. Could the Minister advise which other religious groups that applies to? Just to be clear, at the moment only certain churches—simply put, those with a hierarchy—allow their celebrants to be registrars. I assume that that has not changed; I have not been able to find that in the complex legislative documents, which amend many other Acts. Can the Minister confirm that point?
There is also an element of time to take into account. If a certificate is lost or destroyed, it looks as if there is an eight-day period for it to be replaced. If anyone has ever tried to get a copy of a registration document for birth, marriage and death, eight days is quite optimistic. As the hon. Gentleman highlighted, that could be done by volunteers. We may be dealing with something from some time before. It is not often that I have to produce my marriage certificate, but that is now nearly 25 years old—unbelievably—and my birth certificate is now, I fear, more than 50 years old. Birth certificates may be easier, but it also applies to baptism certificates and so on, and trying to track those things down. Anything to do with churches can be challenging because there are changes of personnel. Records and sometimes church buildings can go; that applies similarly to registry offices. The public sector is often very good at keeping records, but there are things that can go astray. I am slightly worried about the challenge of eight days. It could be quite difficult.
I represent a constituency that has many people who have come from across the world and who have had challenges in life. Often, finding the right document to prove something is one of the biggest barriers to their getting access to the public services they need. So it is more important than it may seem in one or two lines of the regulations. I hope the Minister can pick up those points and the others that have been raised.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch for such comprehensive contributions. I welcome the speech from the shadow Minister. It is pleasing to have the Opposition’s support for the regulations. Obviously, the core of what we are looking to do is not a matter of particular contention.
I start with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch. We recognise that registers have two roles: one is the day-to-day need for people to prove their status or their identity, and the second is for historical records and genealogical research. I take her point about particular churches or places of worship that rely on volunteers. The quarterly returns process in the Church of England can be quite cumbersome; it is a process first started back in the 19th century.
One reason why we want to move to a digital register is to remove the need to get hold of paper documentation. That leans into wider work to allow statuses to be automatically checked by digital systems talking to each other in public services. The hon. Member will appreciate, given her previous role, that that sounds simple, but there are the challenges of making sure that appropriate data protection is in place, and that records will be accessed for legitimate purposes and with people’s consent.
The concept of a church or a religious building continuing to hold a physical register will disappear. They may well keep their historical records and parish registers, but they will no longer be getting someone to fill out a physical certificate. As we have discussed, we have had some lengthy conversations with the Church of England.
On the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, people will still sign a document on the day. It will be similar to now, in that the priest who celebrates the marriage will take responsibility for sending that document off to be placed on the electronic register.
Dunkerton parish church is in a small rural Dartmoor community, in the west of Devon. Marriages have been conducted there for about 700 years. It has no running water, no electricity and certainly no wi-fi. In order to provide a solution that means people can still get married in that ancient church with a wholly electronic register, we came to an appropriate position with the Church of England, which I understand it is happy with and which is as close to the current position as possible. It makes it clear that for those married in that church, the priest is responsible for sending back the form to the registrar, for it to be entered on to the digital record.
People will not see a particular difference on their wedding day, but they will not sign paper certificates on the day. That is where we need to be clear in our own minds. It is no longer about the paper being the record of the marriage. To be clear, this is about recording the event. The moment of marriage is not when it is entered on to the register; sometimes people can be confused and think that signing the register is the moment that they become married. It is not. The certificate is a record of a marriage that has taken place in the church.
Meg Hillier
Is it possible for people to be provided with a paper document? Some people frame their marriage certificates; they are proud of the moment. Will that be prohibited?
Kevin Foster
Absolutely not. There is nothing to stop that. As the hon. Member will know with baptism, which is not recorded in a secular sense by the GRO, certificates are issued by churches. I think the language on them usually says they are to be used “when the child is presented to the Bishop for confirmation.” That is true in the Anglican tradition and there is nothing to stop that. It will not be a legal document of the marriage, but electronic statuses and transactions are becoming increasingly common for most people, and this will be an easy-to-access digital status when needed—for example, to prove a marriage to a bank or someone else—rather than, necessarily, as the hon. Member says, something that someone might want to have on the wall as a record of their relationship.
Jess Phillips
Just to clarify and potentially answer one of the points, nowadays anything can happen, ceremonially, in a church, or even in a registry office, where I got married; churches can, if they want, still keep old books, make records and keep the history of that church. Nothing in the draft regulations bars that—is that correct?
Kevin Foster
That is correct. The only things churches should not use are the current marriage certificates issued under the Marriage Act 1949. That is the thing that changes. Parish registers, which some Church of England parishes have kept literally since medieval times, can continue to be kept. There is no reason why a church cannot give something to people to mark their marriage there. However, people who attend the wedding perhaps will not see that the form that is signed is then sent by the priest back to the registrar to be entered on to the digital record.
We discussed at some length with the Church of England how we can provide a practical solution. It has thousands of priests and marriage venues that have stood for centuries, where a computer solution cannot realistically be installed in any sense, or even a mobile one, so that details can be directly entered into a digital register. This was the solution that we came to. It seems both fair and reasonable, and to be clear, the Church is perfectly happy with it.
Tim Loughton
On a practical point, many churches have a whole supply of marriage certificates, which may be part of a marriage register book. The Minister quite rightly says that they will effectively have no status post 4 May, because there will be the electronic record, but can they not still be used in place of the voluntary thing to give to the happy couple to frame? They will not have a legal status, but it would be a waste to have to throw them all away, would it not?
Kevin Foster
Once we get beyond 4 May, the paper registers will close. Effectively, certificate books will then need to be returned to the GRO to register the final weddings that have taken place under the previous registration system. It would not be appropriate to issue documentation that once had legal status beyond the point at which it has legal status. The current certificate books that people sign will be required to be returned and to cease being used.
Meg Hillier
The Minister talked just now about proving status to a bank or someone. There is a challenge here. Who has access to the register? What are the cyber-security issues around that and who gives permission for that? I am already married, but if I were to get married after 4 May, would that mean that the Minister could look up my marriage? Who in a bank would have the power to do that? Could it be done only with my permission? What are the data protection controls around this hugely important database, which could be used for all sorts of nefarious reasons, as well as benevolent ones?
Kevin Foster
The hon. Member will know that one reason we are moving to a digital system, away from paper, is that paper is far easier to forge or produce copies of, particularly in the modern era, than in the 19th century, although it has to be said that the register is actually a public document. It is not like the census document, which is kept for 100 years. The registers are actually public and can be consulted, as she will be aware of, given her previous time being responsible for the GRO. I think that we can put that particular concern slightly to one side.
We are also looking at digitising some historical records, to make them far easier to search for those looking to do family history and research. As the hon. Member will know from her time with the GRO, family history, especially discovering dates of marriage, can be quite interesting, particularly when going back to grandparents’ or great-grandparents’ generations. When going through a family tree, someone may discover that the great-grandparents who swore blind they got married in 1919 actually got married in 1920, and then realise that grandad was on his way a couple of months later. There is a general part that we are looking to digitise
Kevin Foster
I will give way once more, and then I will make some more progress.
Meg Hillier
Forgive me, but this is an important point. There is a difference with a physical register that someone can look at. The register has people’s addresses and the names of their parents, which are security questions when signing into a bank account. Who gives permission for the register to be checked? Is it completely open to the public, or is there some brake on that to ensure that it is not used inappropriately to mine IDs and to be used for nefarious reasons? That is absolutely fundamental.
When we were looking at introducing identity cards, which of course were not introduced, there were huge debates and discussion of detailed legislation about the security of the data and who would give permission to access it. Although this data is already out there, that is not in the same way as being in a parish register, rather than actually online.
Recently, my local authority suffered a major cyber-security attack, and was very much helped by Whitehall to sort it out, but it will take a year to resolve some of the issues, and important data was stolen and put on the dark web. The issues are therefore very serious and pertinent. I hope that the Minister will address that before we pass the draft regulations.
Kevin Foster
First, one of the most common ways of creating identities at the moment is to forge outdated paper certificates, hence why we are keen to move away from paper certificates, which are easily forged and used for nefarious purposes. Clearly, therefore, we want to move to a digital register.
As the Committee may have picked up, another private Member’s Bill is before the House on Friday, relating to birth and death registration where, similarly, we want to move away from the paper certificate process towards a more secure online register as the final arbiter. That is of course out of the scope of the Committee, but it shows the general thrust of the Government’s plans to modernise a pretty outdated system of registration, emphasised not only by the fact that mothers’ details are on marriage certificates but by the process still being heavily rooted in the past.
The position on access to the register will be the same as it is today. I accept that it is slightly different when someone is checking on a computer, rather than walking down to Somerset House, although a lot of that can be done online already, via records already digitised.
To come to some of the other points, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham stated that he cannot see a mention of mothers’ names on marriage certificates. As he will be aware from our long discussions of his private Member’s Bill that is now an Act, a lot of the purpose was to remove much of the specification in primary legislation that we would not put there today. The actual content will be prescribed in regulations made by the Registrar General, with the approval of the Secretary of State. However, the draft regulations to amend primary legislation will remove the more outdated requirements and then allow the new certificate to include mothers’ names and occupations. To be clear, that is where that will be specified finally, but allowing this to go forward will be the core part.
In a couple of other questions, my hon. Friend asked why a Bill that became an Act in late 2019 is being acted upon in 2021. Originally, we were hoping to launch the new system last year. I hope that the Committee will understand why the middle of a global pandemic, when registrars were urgently having to adapt their birth and death registration systems to cope, was widely viewed as not the appropriate time to introduce a brand new system of marriage registration. We would very much have liked to move forward with it last year, but we wholly accepted the points made by the registration system, that the middle of a pandemic was not an appropriate moment. However, with a lot of weddings delayed to this summer due to the impact of the social distancing regulations last year, now is the time to take the new system forward.
Kevin Foster
I will not now, but I will cover in writing the points about the baby loss review and about coroners and stillbirth—that is perhaps a more appropriate way to update my hon. Friend.
With that, I commend the draft regulations, which will finally bring our marriage law into the 21st century.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Cttee has considered the draft Registration of Marriages Regulations 2021.
Draft Financial Reporting Council (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members about social distancing. Spaces available to Members are clearly marked—that will not be a problem today. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee, obviously when you are not speaking. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if you could send any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Reporting Council (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. The order was laid before the House on 8 April. It aims to ensure that the Financial Reporting Council, the public body that regulates auditors, accountants and actuaries, follows the same rules as other regulators on access to information, how it exercises its regulatory functions and promoting equality.
The order serves three purposes. First, it designates the Financial Reporting Council a public authority for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act in respect of specific public functions. Secondly, it ensures that all the FRC’s regulatory functions are subject to the regulators’ code, which sets good practice for regulators. Thirdly, it will add the FRC to the list of public authorities subject to the public sector equality duty.
I should stress that the FRC is already partially subject to those duties, and otherwise voluntarily adheres to those rules at the moment. However, it is more effective, more transparent and more consistent to apply those duties and rules in law comprehensively, as the draft instrument does.
Following the collapse of BHS and Carillion in particular, it has been a priority of the Government to understand and address shortcomings in the UK audit environment, including the role of the FRC as regulator. That is why, in April 2018, the Government commissioned Sir John Kingman to conduct an independent review of the FRC, which reported on 18 December 2018.
The FRC review identified the need for a new, strengthened regulator. It emphasised the need for the regulator to be held to the standards and obligations expected of all public sector bodies and to be more transparent, and recommended that it should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act and the regulators’ code. Those findings were supported by the Government and welcomed at the time by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.
The FRC, under new leadership, has already taken significant steps to strengthen its capabilities and to begin building the additional capacity needed to deliver on the ambitious mandate set by the FRC review.
The order builds on the progress in implementing the review’s recommendations on the FRC’s internal workings, which include full compliance with the “Managing Public Money” handbook, streamlining governance structures and enhancing stakeholder engagement. Those measures represent another step forward on the path to transforming the FRC into a new, strengthened regulator.
Let me deal with the application of the FOI Act to the FRC. At the moment, only some of the FRC’s statutory functions are subject to the FOI Act. The FRC has since voluntarily adopted compliance with its provisions. The order will designate the FRC a public authority for the purposes of the FOI Act, so that all its public functions are covered by the Act. The FRC was consulted on the application of the Act to its public functions and was supportive of that. Since the FRC is a public body, it is right and proper that the order applies the FOI Act to its public functions, helping to underpin public confidence and trust in the regulator.
I turn to the regulators’ code measure. The FRC already applies the code to some of its regulatory functions. The order will now apply the regulators’ code to all the FRC’s regulatory functions, save those that it has delegated to the relevant professional bodies.
The code encourages trust, open dialogue and accountability between the regulator and those that it regulates. Application of the code by legislation will make the FRC more accountable, in line with other regulators. It will encourage greater transparency in the way regulation is delivered and enable the FRC to target its resources better.
The Government have worked closely with the FRC and the relevant professional bodies and consulted them on this matter. All the consulted parties supported the application of the code to the FRC.
The third measure is the public sector equality duty. It will add the FRC to the list of public bodies that are formally subject to the duty. Currently, the FRC is only subject to the duty with respect to its public functions.
Those subject to the equality duty must eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by or under the Equality Act 2010. They must advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. They must also foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
The FRC sets the UK corporate governance code, which the UK’s largest companies are required to apply on a “comply or explain” basis. The code promotes diversity reporting. It is therefore only fair that the FRC itself is subject to the highest public duty with respect to equality considerations in its role.
In March 2019, in publishing an initial response to the FRC review, the Government committed to replace the FRC with a new independent statutory regulator with stronger powers. The new regulator, the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority, will be a regulator with teeth, backed by legislation, funded by a mandatory levy on industry, with stronger enforcement powers.
The Government will legislate to create the new regulator when parliamentary time allows, but the measures in the draft instrument do not need to wait and should not wait. They will ensure that the FRC’s position is consistent with those of other public bodies and make it more transparent and more accountable to the businesses and professions that it regulates.
I hope that the Committee agrees that the three measures in the instrument will improve the UK’s audit, accounting and corporate reporting regulator by making it more accountable and transparent.
I commend the order to the Committee.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Charles, and to be back in Parliament with my SI buddy, the Minister. We seem to do a double act on these things.
As hon. Members know, the Financial Reporting Council is an independent regulator responsible for regulating auditors, accountants, and actuaries and setting the UK’s corporate governance and stewardship code. However, as Sir John Kingman’s review in December 2018 made clear, it was an institution that “leaked and creaked” and required fundamental reform. As the Minister said, its days are now numbered, and it is to be replaced by a new Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority, but it appears that the Government are dithering on this, given that Ministers have promised us year after year that audit reform will be introduced. We now hear that it will happen in early 2021, although that looks questionable too. Does the Minister know when we can expect audit reform for sure and the replacement of the FRC with the new authority? Will it mean more than just changing the letterhead?
The order imposes specific duties on the FRC related to freedom of information, the regulators’ code and the public sector equality duty. The role of the FRC has developed over time, and in 2017 the then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy concluded that the FRC’s work should comply with all the relevant public body guidelines. In 2018, the Government commissioned an independent review, which recommended that the regulator should be subject to the FOI Act.
A couple of years ago, the FRC voluntarily adopted compliance with the codes, so this statutory instrument will not fundamentally change the FRC’s approach. Although it is welcome that compliance is to be put on a statutory footing, I wonder why it is happening now, when we are about to disband the organisation and replace it with a new one. Why could not we have passed the SI, which is fairly straightforward, two or three years ago?
We support the changes, but we wonder why they are being made now and when we can expect the proposals for the new Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority to come forward.
Paul Scully
I appreciate the hon. Member’s comments and constructive contribution to the debate. We do not want to delay the FRC’s replacement in any way, but the new regulator will require primary legislation and, as I said, the Government intend to introduce it when parliamentary time allows.
In the meantime, the Government are committed to putting in place the right degree of transparency and oversight of the regulator. The order, which applies to the current regulator, is an important step in achieving that. Yes, the FRC has voluntarily covered a lot of what is in the measures, but we want to ensure its good standing until we get to the point of setting up its replacement. Reliable audit and corporate reporting are vital to well-functioning markets, business investment and growth. An effective regulator is essential to help the UK economy realise those benefits.
The measures will help ensure that the UK maintains and advances its status as a place of the highest standards in audit and corporate reporting. The Government are committed to acting on the findings of Sir John Kingman’s independent review of the FRC. The measures are steps towards that goal.
I thank hon. Members again for their valuable time and contributions to the debate. I hope that the Committee will approve the SI.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Residential Leaseholders and Interim Fire Safety Costs
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Welcome to Westminster Hall from the Boothroyd Room. I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between debates. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall and are expected to remain for the entire debate. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before using them and before leaving the room.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered residential leaseholders and interim fire safety costs.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. It is also a pleasure to be back in Westminster Hall and to be able to debate such an important topic today. When I became the MP for Vauxhall in 2019, two and a half years after the horrific Grenfell Tower fire, I did not expect to find so many of my constituents still living in unsafe buildings, blighted by dangerous cladding and other fire safety defects. To date, I have received correspondence from and been contacted by more than 250 individual leaseholders living in 27 different unsafe building developments in my constituency. And that is just in Vauxhall. The sheer scale of the cladding scandal is truly shocking, and it has revealed the full extent of what can only be described as a systematic failure in building safety in this country. But because of the tireless efforts of campaigners and their supporters up and down the country, we know that safety is only one part of this story. Leaseholders who bought their homes in good faith now find themselves saddled with the financial responsibility and liability for problems that they had absolutely no part in creating.
Much has been said recently about this injustice, and I am grateful to colleagues across the House who have called for urgent action to protect innocent leaseholders. Understandably, much of the debate has focused on who should pay for the cost of the remedial works to remove and replace the cladding. However, I want to draw attention to an equally urgent but much less talked about financial aspect of this crisis. That is the eye-watering charges that are being passed on to leaseholders for compulsory interim fire safety measures while they wait for the remediation work to be completed.
Interim costs have life-changing impacts. The sheer feeling of hopelessness is shared by many leaseholders I have spoken to. One constituent wrote to me and said,
“I have worked hard. I have contributed to the communities in which I have lived. I have paid over £100,000 in taxes over the past three years. And yet I now find myself facing potential bankruptcy, homelessness and the collapse of my business through no fault of my own. My future is utterly bleak, and my life feels worthless.”
As soon as a building is assessed to be unsafe, residents are told that they must immediately introduce additional fire safety protocols or face an evacuation order from the fire brigade. The requirement for those interim measures can be met in two ways. One is by appointing a waking watch, whereby trained wardens continually patrol the building in order to be able to detect a fire. The second is the installation of specialist alarm systems. Faced with homelessness, leaseholders have little choice but to assume the costs for those measures.
Interim measures have become a frequent occurrence as the fire safety crisis has unravelled over the last three and a half years. Every week, new buildings have been discovered to be unsafe. Worryingly, a fire safety assessment is generally triggered only when the leaseholder tries to remortgage or sell, which in turn triggers the external wall survey or the now-infamous EWS1 process. It means that the true scale of the problem is still unknown, and it will only grow in the months and years ahead.
There is currently nothing in law to protect leaseholders from the financial responsibilities for such interim measures, which are typically passed on through increased service charges. The data on interim costs are patchy and incomplete. Government figures show that the average estimated cost of a waking watch in England is £17,000 per block, rising to over £20,000 in London. Per household, that translates to a bill of approximately £500 a month for each affected household. Alarm systems are not much cheaper as an alternative, with estimates ranging from £50,000 to £150,000 depending on the size of the building. Those figures are eye-watering, and they will recur month after month, year after year, until the cladding is removed and the building is deemed completely safe.
In February of this year, the Minister told Parliament that
“we are clear that waking watch regimes should only ever be used in the short term”.—[Official Report, 1 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 690-691.]
On one development in the Kennington area of my constituency, however, they have been paying for a waking watch since July of last year, at a cost of £10,000 per flat. The remediation works are not expected to be completed before the end of next year, and the alarm system is deemed insufficient to meet the danger. The total cost of the interim measures for this one development is currently estimated to reach over £1 million. What really sticks in the throat for my constituents is not just that the interim measures are expensive and mandatory, but that their effectiveness has been called into question. One constituent told me:
“These guys add little practical value and sit around watching TV on their phones, and yet we have to pay for them under the threat of being evicted if we don’t. In a fire, they are not really going to be able to make a blind bit of difference through evacuating residents.”
We have to remember that such interim measures are a daily reminder to our constituents that the buildings they live in are unsafe. The amounts are unaffordable for most people at any stage in life, but many of those affected are young, first-time buyers whose dreams of home ownership have turned into an unaffordable nightmare, with their homes literally unsellable. Industry experts estimate that it will take between five and 15 years for all affected buildings to be remediated. The truth is that the costs are anything but interim.
Ministers have known about this problem for almost four years. They have repeatedly acknowledged that fire safety defects are not the fault of leaseholders, and yet it took the Secretary of State until December last year to announce any sort of help for interim costs. The waking watch relief fund, which offers a grant to pay for the installation of fire alarm systems, was a welcome step in the right direction, but it remains the only form of Government assistance that is available for interim costs. In their current form, the fund’s provisions are partial and insufficient. Leaseholders living in blocks below 18 metres are excluded from applying. The Government claim that this is because the risk of a life-threatening fire in lower buildings is smaller, but any building that faces an evacuation order if the interim measures are not established is, by definition, clearly not safe, regardless of whether it is 18, 15 or 12 metres.
One such block in Vauxhall, which is under 18 metres, failed its EWS1 assessment in October 2020, and its leaseholders have had to find more than £170,000 to pay for interim safety measures. It is estimated that the remediation work will cost in total £1.4 million. The developer of the building has gone out of business, and leaseholders were all excluded from any Government support schemes. I simply do not know how this situation can ever be fair.
Even if we focus our attention on just the buildings over 18 metres that can apply for the fund, the £30 million that the Government have allocated is drastically short of what is needed. The Government estimate that that will pay for a maximum of 460 buildings, but there are at least 560 eligible buildings in London alone. Lord Greenhalgh told the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on Monday this week:
“We recognise that the £30 million goes some way, but not all the way.”
Finally, the fund pays only for an alarm system purchased and installed after December 2020. That totally ignores the thousands of pounds that leaseholders have already spent on compulsory and expensive but ineffective waking watch systems. How can that be right or fair?
The Government, including the Minister, have repeatedly said in the House that no leaseholder should pay, so I ask the Minister whether he agrees in principle that innocent leaseholders should not be responsible for solving the problems that they did not cause. Why are we asking the same leaseholders to pay extortionate sums for interim costs?
I am grateful to the Minister for attending this debate today. I want to conclude my remarks by focusing on what can be done to fix this appalling situation. I have four questions for the Minister, which I hope he will answer. Will the Government agree to the principle that no leaseholder should have to pay for interim fire safety measures to mitigate the problems that they did not cause? Will the Government commit to including provisions within the upcoming draft Building Safety Bill to protect leaseholders from such costs, and ensure that they are picked up by the people who were responsible for causing them in the first place? Will the Government immediately extend the waking watch relief fund to match the number of buildings that we know are affected, and make sure that all leaseholders facing these costs can apply regardless of building heights?
The Minister has previously said that interim measures should be used only temporarily,
“because they are an entirely inadequate substitute for remediation.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 691.]
With that in mind, will the Minister ask the Government to mandate a timetable for the completion of the remediation work in all unsafe blocks to make sure that the interim costs do not have to be paid by leaseholders for years to come?
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate will last until 10.55 am. I intend to call the Opposition spokesman no later than 10.32 am and the Minister at 10.42 am. Florence Eshalomi will have two or three minutes to sum up the debate at the end. There are 16 Back Benchers seeking to contribute. I want to make sure that everyone gets in, so I am afraid that I will have to impose a time limit. If we aim for three minutes, everybody should have their say. All Members participating virtually should have a countdown clock on their screens. We will start with Stephen McPartland.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this very important debate. She spoke eloquently and movingly about some of the tragic stories that she has heard about in her constituency in London. Sadly, those stories are reflected in my constituency and in constituencies up and down the country.
The costs of intermediate waking watch measures and of insurance premiums going up by thousands of per cent are just heartbreaking. Even as we speak in these debates, people are going bankrupt, and the Government do not seem to be listening to the howls of pain from leaseholders up and down the country, as they beg for support and assistance.
We are almost four years on from Grenfell and we are not getting this matter right; we are not helping. Unfortunately, the Government are actually making the situation worse by not working with leaseholders and the relevant groups, such as the UK Cladding Action Group—End Our Cladding Scandal. A variety of brilliant recommendations have been made by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, which is chaired by our wonderful colleague, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who is taking part in this debate. It is imperative that we help these leaseholders.
When we look at insurance premiums as a measure, which a lot of people do not recognise, we see that they may have gone up by 2,000% or even 3,000%. The Government are taking 12% in insurance premium tax on those rises, so the insurance premium tax take on those insurance premiums is currently higher than the insurance premiums themselves were a year or two ago. That is astonishing.
On waking watch, the fire services have told us that they have almost no control over it. Waking watch is not new; it was introduced years ago and was used, for example, if a hotel fire alarm did not work. At the moment, however, waking watches are being used by management companies as the first resort instead of the last resort. As a result, our local fire services do not have any ability to go in and help the leaseholders, who are being told, “Well, you need to have a waking watch”. There are no other options for them. The fire services should be given some powers to be involved in a responsible waking watch, when it is needed, or to consider what other evacuation orders or measures could be put in place. And the costs are just staggering. I have constituents in Vista Tower in Stevenage who are paying £15,000 a week and they just cannot afford it; that sum is impossible for them to afford. They are paying almost as much as some of their mortgage payments and they are now going bankrupt.
I urge the Minister—please listen to the pain of leaseholders up and down the country. Stop talking and start doing. Start helping my constituents and those in a similar situation up and down the country.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I am always pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I look forward to doing so again today.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing this important debate. My constituents in Edmonton who live in Prowse Court, Golden Lion Court and Brickland Court watched the Chancellor’s speech last week and were left feeling very disappointed. There was not one mention of cladding or fire safety in the Budget.
Leaseholders such as my constituent Jason and his wife moved into their flat in 2007 with their daughter. In January this year, a fire safety assessment concluded that the cladding on Jason’s building needed to be removed. Jason and his fellow tenants have no idea about how long they are going to be waiting for the removal of the cladding or who will meet the costs of that work. All they are certain of is that the interim safety measures must be put in place, including increased fire risk assessments and additional heat detectors. The freeholder of Jason’s building has already begun passing down the costs of these measures, in the form of increased insurance and service charge costs. That has left Jason in debt, unable to move and stuck in an unsafe building that is costing him more and more money. Jason goes to sleep every night knowing that his family is not safe and that there is no end in sight to his worry. To put it simply, Jason’s family are trapped.
I have raised identical cases with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to ask that the Government fully fund interim fire safety costs. In their reply, the Government seemed focused only on ensuring that remediation work is completed first. It is incredibly unjust to penalise those who did not cause this cladding scandal to have to wait for remediation work to be completed first, while allowing the property developer to walk away, bearing no interim costs and seemingly no long-term costs.
I hope that the Minister will carefully consider what has been said in this debate and will ensure that in the future the Government will not only meet their obligations and fully fund interim fire safety costs, so that not one leaseholder is left out of pocket, but will fully acknowledge that the cladding scandal needs to be treated as the national emergency that it truly is.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing the debate, and it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) in highlighting the concerns arising in the debate.
Given the circumstances, I want to concentrate on two areas. The first is cladding on tall buildings. I congratulate the Government on securing funding to help to remediate that cladding, but the problem is that the cost of removing cladding on tall buildings is often dwarfed by the cost of the fire safety measures that must also be implemented. It is quite clear, as things stand, that leaseholders will be saddled with the costs of the fire safety measures that are required, as well as the costs of the cladding. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister would respond to the issue of what exactly is included in the remediation of cladding. At the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, there was some confusion when it was suggested that external areas that are not involved in the cladding, such as different balconies, will now be included in the grant scheme.
The other problem is that we are now told that once a fire assessment takes place, the remediation grants will not be available unless leaseholders sign up to fixing the fire safety issues as well, but those involve eye-watering sums of money. The arrangements, of course, are complex. I think we all agree leaseholders should not have to pay for the remediation, but the issue then is who should. I take the view that the taxpayer should not pay for it. The developers, building owners and indeed suppliers of materials should pay for the fire safety remediation, as well as the remediation of unsafe cladding. There is no doubt that the testing regime was unfit for purpose at the time in question, but emerging evidence from the Grenfell inquiry suggests that manufacturers deliberately decided to use the position on testing to cheat on the system. If so, they should be forced to carry out the remediation at their cost.
Equally, there is the challenge of insurance, mortgages and the values of the properties that are affected. Clearly, at the moment, leaseholders cannot be expected to wait for the introduction of the building safety Bill. It will take more than two years for it to come into operation, and leaseholders cannot wait. We need clarity on the point that the fees and costs will be picked up and that the leaseholders will not have to pay them. We also know that it will take an extended period to carry out the works.
I will rest my remarks there. I hope that we will get a response from the Minister on exactly what the scheme covers.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
In a moment, I will call Dame Margaret Hodge. The speaker after her has withdrawn, so then we will go to Hilary Benn.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) [V]
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing this important debate.
In June 2019, a devastating fire tore through the timber balconies of Samuel Garside House in Barking. Residents lost their homes and possessions, and even their pets, and now live in fear, suffering sleepless nights and constant anxiety. Those residents were the first of many constituents impacted by the cladding scandal who have sought my help.
Leaseholders in Barking and Dagenham are not wealthy. Many live hand to mouth, and most cannot even afford contents insurance. Cladding has turned their dream of buying a home into a living nightmare. They face ongoing costs for interim safety measures, and cannot afford them. There are massive bills for waking watches, building insurance and EWS surveys, and the residents cannot sell or remortgage their homes.
At Academy Central, residents have paid £3,500 per household per year for a waking watch. Many cannot afford it and have been doing 24-hour control themselves, which places huge strain on their lives. At Rivermill Lofts, leaseholders have struggled to get an EWS survey. They have been quoted hundreds of pounds per flat, and only 70% of the households have paid up. In the meantime, their flats are worthless. At the Ropeworks, building insurance shot up from £70,000 to £650,000—that is 900%—in two years. At Barking Central, bills for interim measures have reached £6,500 per home. A third of leaseholders cannot afford that, and the cladding grant that they hope to get will not cover the costs of dealing with things such as flammable insulation or faulty firebreaks.
Many leases are buy-to-let, and the landlords often just do not care—at Arboretum Place, only five people turned up to discuss a way forward. The owner-occupiers cannot even begin to sort out the mess if the landlords will not engage. Responsibilities are diffuse, ownership is often shady and stakeholders shirk their obligations. I have had freeholders refusing point blank even to consider that they have a moral duty to help, developers refusing to turn up to meetings and insurers profiteering.
The Government said that leaseholders should not have to pay, but my leaseholders need Government action, not warm words. Developers, freeholders, builders, manufacturers and regulators should all contribute, but only the Government can force them to do so. The support package still has too many gaps—insufficient funding, arbitrary height thresholds, unaffordable loans and the ignoring of all the other defects. The issue will not go away—we will not let it—until the Government act comprehensively and thoroughly so that homes are made safe and leaseholders are not forced to foot the bills.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing this debate.
The Government have done a great deal—I recognise that—with the money and funding made available. Equally, however, it is not enough, because the quantum of money available is not adequate and does not cover all the consequences of the regulatory failure that has put many people, including constituents of mine, in an impossible situation. It will be necessary for the Government to look again. Let me explain why that is important.
We have already heard about the dire position that many flat owners are placed in. Many of them have done the right thing in many ways—they have sought to buy their own homes—and they have done the things that my party has urged them to do. Now, they feel cut adrift. Many are people at the lower of the income scale, and many bought these properties as their entry into the housing market. Key statistics show, for example, that some 59% of the homeowners caught in this situation have an income of less than £50,000, and 33% of less than £35,000; when they are being hit with massive bills of tens of thousands of pounds, that is not very much—on properties that are unmortgageable or unsaleable.
In Northpoint, in my constituency, residents have collectively paid more than £0.5 million on a waking watch, on top of £120,000 for the installation of a temporary fire alarm. In some cases, the evidence shows that people are paying up to £50,000 a month. Also, as has been observed, insurance premiums have shot through the roof. In one London block, for example, the premium increased from £130,000 to £690,000. That is despite the fact that, in some cases, those buildings have been approved by the Department for the ACM remediation scheme and have put alarms in place. None the less, the insurance industry has, frankly, made unreasonable and unjustified levels of profit, and it needs to put its house in order, too.
We do need to pursue those at fault in the cladding scandal—the contractors and the builders—but that will take time, and it may take years. The leaseholders need help with cash flow. That is why the Government should be making available not just grants but loans to be recouped from those who are ultimately responsible. Only the Government have the cash flow to enable these people to move on with their lives. There is not just an economic cost but a massive personal and social one, too, for the victims of the cladding scandal.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We can hear you, and now would be a really good time to hear your contribution.
Hilary Benn
I do apologise.
I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing the debate and on talking so passionately, as others have, about the unaffordable cost to our constituents of waking watches and insurance bills. We all know that those costs are to pay for the symptom of the problem; they will never remedy the problem itself, but they will eventually end up bankrupting people.
My constituent Hayley Tillotson saved up for four years to buy her flat. She called it:
“The proudest moment of my life.”
Just before Christmas, she had to declare herself bankrupt and hand back the keys to her dream home. Why? Because the waking watch fee was the same as her mortgage, and she did not have the money to pay it. The point I want to make is simply this: despite the steps the Government have taken, without something else happening, these so-called interim costs will continue to be demanded in the months and years ahead because the buildings will not have been made completely safe. Why is that? Dangerous cladding is only part of the problem. The other part is that wooden balconies and walkways, flammable insulation and missing fire breaks have been discovered time and time again as innocent leaseholders learn that their block was not constructed even to the building standards of the time.
The Minister knows perfectly well that leaseholders do not have the money to fix those other fire safety defects. When the Secretary of State was pressed on that, he said that the taxpayer could not be expected to meet the cost of fixing any safety defect on any building of any height. That is a fair point, although successive Governments do bear some responsibility because they presided over the scandal. But the people who really should pay—the developers, the builders and the freeholders—should be asked for the money. The Government have created the means through the tax and the levy announced by the Secretary of State, so they should provide loans to fix the problem and recoup the money from those three sources.
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply to my written question about whether works to remove dangerous cladding that are funded by the building safety fund will be delayed if insufficient funds are available to fix the other fire safety problems. A press report suggested that that could happen, but his reply implied that it would not. Could he clarify that in responding?
The fact remains that until sufficient funds are identified, the costs will continue to drain the resources and the spirits of all the leaseholders caught up in this nightmare. The question to the Minister remains a simple one: he knows that leaseholders cannot afford to fix the other problems, so what is his plan for getting them fixed?
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) for securing the debate. May I say how impressive her introduction was? It is a reflection of the immense talent she brings to the House.
I will speak briefly, because I promised my constituents who live at the Ballymore development at High Point Village in Hayes that I would take every opportunity I could to raise their concerns. Like other Members, I find it virtually impossible to describe the distress that my constituents have experienced and are going through. It started the day after Grenfell, when they were concerned about their own safety, but it then took a long time to get a thorough inspection under way.
The developer has behaved totally irresponsibly and is failing to communicate effectively with my constituents. In addition, we are only now into the application stage for Government assistance to tackle the cladding costs and removal, and we have discovered that, as others have said, large measures will not be covered by the Government’s grant. I find it intolerable that the developer is now coming back and saying that all these other defects, which it is equally responsible for, including the wooden balconies, will not be covered in those costs. Therefore, my constituents feel that they will not be made safe, or, if they are, that it will be at a high cost to themselves and not the developers.
In the meantime, like other Members’ constituents, my constituents are being hit with increases in their service charges, particularly around insurance. There is no way that they can afford the waking watch costs that are being imposed on them. Like others, they feel lost. They are trapped in their homes. They cannot sell on. They are growing families. People are trying to move around the country to get a job, as a result of the job losses in my area, but they cannot, because they just cannot sell on. Their whole lives are being put on hold.
There has to be a sense of urgency from the Government now—a clarity about what is covered by the building grant put forward by the Government, to ensure that there is comprehensive cover. Secondly, all the interim measures have to be covered. Thirdly, there needs to be action from Government on the control of service charges imposed on many of our residents by some of these developers, whom most of us have lost confidence in, even if we had any in the beginning.
I close by re-emphasising the distress that this is causing my constituents—distress to the point that it is affecting their health. I think we have a number of mental health crises now as a result not just of what has happened to constituents because of the development of buildings that were not properly regulated or inspected and that were faultily built, but because of the distress caused by the laggard way in which the Government have handled this issue. I cannot stress enough the sense of urgency that there should be at the heart of Government about addressing these issues.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Everyone has been so good that we can splash out and raise the time limit to three and a half minutes. Enjoy!
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this important debate. She has long been a passionate supporter of all those who have been so terribly affected by this issue, and I have no doubt that we are all immensely grateful for her tireless efforts. I also pay tribute to our nation’s heroic fire and rescue teams, who put their lives on the line every day to keep us all safe.
The fact that we have been forced to have this debate at all is a matter of deep regret. Nearly four years after the Grenfell fire, the Government are still to learn the lessons of that tragedy and to take the action that is so desperately needed to ensure that everyone is safe in their home. Too many people remain stuck in unsafe flats that they cannot sell, pushed to the brink of bankruptcy by the colossal costs of waking watches and cladding removal, and in fear of going to sleep each night. In Merseyside alone, there are 25 buildings with waking watches in operation, and there are 65 across the north-west.
With the Fire Safety Bill, the Government had the opportunity to draw a line in the sand, but that Bill failed to go far enough or fast enough, and will have done little to address the very real concerns of the many thousands of people stranded in unsafe buildings. Similarly, the £3.5 billion announced by the Communities Secretary simply will not address the scale of this crisis. While it may help people living in buildings over 18 metres, those stuck in smaller housing blocks still face being burdened with debts that many of them can never even hope to repay. Let us be clear: leaseholders should be not be forced to shoulder the costs of other people’s mistakes, but despite saying on no less than 17 occasions that leaseholders will not be forced to meet the costs of fire safety measures, that is exactly what the Government now expect thousands of people to do. The Government also said nothing about addressing the issue of non-cladding-related fire risks, such as wooden balconies, despite the considerable risks that these pose to tenants.
Finally, as we consider the Government’s failure to step up and ensure the safety of leaseholders, we must not forget the role that 10 years of sweeping funding cuts to frontline fire and rescue have played in the undermining of all our safety. Since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, 400 firefighters have been lost in Merseyside alone. Across the country, thousands more posts have been axed and hundreds of stations closed. The tragic consequence is that response times have fallen and our fire service’s ability to tackle incidents and save lives has been critically undermined.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this hugely important debate and for her fantastic contribution, and for her tireless work on these issues, including on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, on which I serve alongside her.
Residential leaseholders are the only group involved in the cladding scandal who have no responsibility for the danger they are in every waking minute and when they are asleep. The Government, the regulators, property developers, builders—I could go on and on—all have their share of responsibility for the cost of interim fire safety measures following Grenfell, yet leaseholders still have to pay ever-increasing bills to cover these interim costs. As we have heard in heartbreaking testimonies to the HCLG Committee, many are experiencing an unimaginable toll on their mental health, from circumstances out of their control and not of their making. The lack of clarity from Government is also causing significant distress, so I hope that the Minister will today provide the further clarity that Members and campaigners are asking for. After two hours at a Select Committee on Monday, I was left with more questions than answers about who is actually responsible for this current chaos and who will pick up the tab for sorting it out.
Waking watch is one of the fastest growing service industries in England, but with no regulation and no cap on costs, there has been an increase in bankruptcies and bailiffs up and down the country. These costs are being passed on to leaseholders and come at the same time as Action for Children reports that 40% of families are struggling to feed their children. I hope that the Minister will outline exactly what support his Department is giving to those having to choose between paying for waking watch or a hot meal for their children. I also expect the Minister to clarify what further support will be provided to those leaseholders who receive universal credit and face the costs of waking watch. The uplift of £20 a week pays for less than an hour of a waking watch once a week.
It is nearly four years since the Grenfell tragedy and we are still talking about interim measures. The toxic mix of the fire safety crisis and covid is causing a public health crisis, which should be recognised by the Government. This is not only about an industry that needs reforming; it is also about a health crisis that needs addressing. Unaffordable costs heaped on top of the mental torment caused by living in dangerous buildings do not feel interim for those facing them. This has already inflicted irreversible damage on the livelihoods and wellbeing of many leaseholders across the country. I expect the Minister not only to acknowledge this injustice, but to commit to providing the urgent and immediate support needed for those leaseholders.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to contribute in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing the debate and on opening it so powerfully.
I represent several blocks across central Sheffield that are affected by the cladding and fire safety scandal, with leaseholders being destroyed by the failure of the Government to come up with a solution that matches the scale of the problem. The Metis building has gained a lot of public attention, and last night there was a meeting of leaseholders there. Five weeks after applying for the waking watch fund, there is still no money. Alarms take some weeks to install, so they face substantially more waking watch costs on top of the £120,000 they have already paid. There is no plan yet for missing external cavity barriers or insulation, which they are told will not come this year because of the cost, estimated at £6.2 million, for which they have been rejected by the building safety fund, meaning that they will not get an EWS1 form, leaving their properties unsaleable and them facing bills of up to £50,000.
Replacement of ACM cladding for Metis is being funded, but I have been contacted by a commercial leaseholder with a small business operating from the building who faces a bill of £327,000 to pay the shortfall on ACM remediation because of the cash limits in the scheme. She fears that will drive her out of business, after many years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall described the impact of interim costs really well. One of those interim costs is insurance, as the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) highlighted. In the Metis building, they faced a 60% increase in insurance costs. The situation is worse for residents in the Wicker Riverside complex, who were evacuated before Christmas because of multiple fire safety failings. Their building has become uninsurable, exposing them to huge risk and potential breach of mortgage agreements. They met the Building Safety Minister last week and it appears that the Government are relying on a market solution. No market solution is forthcoming. There is a precedent for the Government underwriting insurance in such situations to enable a solution. Will the Minister consider such a way forward?
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said that the Government should not foot the bill for the failings of others. He is right, but only the Government can act to hold those responsible to account, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) pointed out. Only the Government can ensure that these issues are dealt with with the urgency that is needed. We should also recognise that the Government have much more responsibility than the leaseholders, because they oversaw the flawed system of building inspections that signed off so many of these unsafe buildings. These leaseholders are the victims of comprehensive regulatory failure and that is why it is the responsibility of Government to step in, own the problem and resolve it, without any costs to leaseholders, either now or in the future, through any loans scheme.
We are talking about unbearable pressure and unimaginable strain on the young people and families who are trapped in homes that are unsafe and unsaleable. The Minister knows that this is a grave injustice. He must assure us that he will remedy it.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
It is a privilege to speak in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing it. We simply cannot raise this issue enough, as it affects so many of our constituents’ lives across the country.
I have constituents who write to me, and parents and friends who write about their loved ones; about how they feel trapped, how they have fallen into severe debt, how they are living in overcrowded situations because they cannot move home, and how they are desperately worried about their safety. Residents have been paying waking watch costs. They have seen insurance costs rocket. They have seen service charges increase. They should not have to contribute to replacing cladding, when all of this is no fault of their own. What was once their dream home has become a nightmare. I have said this before, and I am saying it again: this nightmare is their reality. This experience is something they live with daily, in real financial and emotional terms.
The Secretary of State’s long-awaited announcement last month about support for residents in dangerous buildings fell short of what is needed for the people of our country who are affected. Why was the Minister so short-sighted? Why was this whole issue absent from the Chancellor’s Budget? If residents live with unsafe cladding and fire defects, that is through no fault of their own; the height of the building should not matter either. The Government are not meeting their duty, but they are protecting developers, freeholders and insurance companies. That is what we surmise from this gross inaction.
Financial support should not be non-existent for people and their families living in housing blocks beneath six storeys. The Grenfell disaster took 72 precious lives. I have to ask: what are the Government waiting for before they are motivated to act decently? The actions recommended by both the phase 1 report of the Grenfell Tower inquiry and Dame Judith Hackitt’s review are clearly not being carried out at pace. Where did the sense of urgency go?
This is not a situation where the Government can choose what to remedy and what not to remedy. In my constituency, residents of the Parkside development have been told by Peabody housing association that its remediation work will take approximately five years. In this half-decade, the residents will be made to pay for short-term solutions. I join my colleagues in saying that is entirely unacceptable. Leaseholders should not have to pay for any shortcomings that they are not responsible for, even for a short period.
I implore the Government not to allow my words and those of others to fall to the ground. This is about protecting lives, securing a home for people and families, and doing the decent thing up and down our country.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) [V]
I am very grateful for the extra 30 seconds, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) for organising this debate and speaking so brilliantly in opening it. In West Ham, we have the highest take-up of furlough and unemployment is up 240% since the pandemic began—it is grim. That is what people in Newham already face, and the costs and stresses of so-called interim fire safety measures come on top of that really difficult reality. Interim means that until the blocks of flats have been certified and, if necessary, remediated, people are in limbo, and that is proving to be a really long time. Because of these measures, residents are still living with the constant reminder that their building is not safe. It preys on their mind, and they are paying through their nose for the privilege.
Zain’s block was found to be unsafe, but the original developer of his building is now operating another company. It has refused to take responsibility, so the costs will inevitably fall to Zain and the other residents of his block. The Minister knows full well what I think about that. I would be grateful to him if he touches on what he can do to help Zain and other residents in similar circumstances.
Before the expensive remediation work even begins, Zain has been faced with massive bills. The insurance premium for the block has rocketed from £3,500 to £280,000. Unbelievably, Zain was asked to cover 2021’s bill with one day’s notice. Then there is the cost of the new alarm system, round after round of surveys, a new managing agency and even the dreaded waking watch. Overall, that could cost Zain £20,000—probably more. His building is not a high rise, so unless the Government change tack, the estimated £40,000 per household for the cost of remediation will not be covered fully either. Zain is terrified. He is going to have a bill of £60,000 and upwards in total.
I cannot emphasise enough what a strain this issue is putting on my constituents’ lives, their relationships, their ability to move on, and their mental health. It is so unfair. Time and again, Ministers have promised that leaseholders trapped in these situations will not have to pay to fix problems that they did not cause, but as I said before, with the interim costs, leaseholders are already paying. That is why so many people were bitterly disappointed when the Government rejected Labour’s amendments and the McPartland-Smith one-two. I really hope that today the Minister will provide us with fresh assurances that we can pass to Zain and the thousands of others that this seemingly endless awful situation will finally be resolved, and that the Government will step up.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) for her powerful opening to the debate, and all colleagues from across the House, whose speeches reflect the frustrations, anger, mental health worries and financial worries experienced by my constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth. I have many of these buildings with a huge series of defects—not just fire safety, but the wider building defects that have been referred to. My constituents’ experiences reflect those shared by other hon. Members.
I will give some examples away from the fire safety issues: compartmentation, cladding, foam inside the walls of the buildings, and balconies have been touched on already, but there are other issues. I discovered in one of my blocks issues with the foul water system. It had not even been connected in one leaseholder’s flat, and as a result, sewage flooded into her flat. It was found later that it had been propped up on a Starbucks cup. That is what we are talking about; those are the defects in buildings that people are having to put up with. It is completely unacceptable, and residents simply should not have to put up with the cost of remediation. It is not their responsibility; it is the responsibility of the original developers who built the buildings, as I have maintained throughout this. Government must step in to act because the time it will take is clear, as many colleagues have said.
My residents have also been hit with many interim costs, such as waking watches, investigations into materials and the state of walls, or insurance costs, which have been mentioned. I have met the Association of British Insurers and the wider industry to raise concerns about that. The Government must work with insurers to ensure that we do not get to a situation where insurers pull out and residents, such as those in one of my blocks, are suddenly hit with thousands of pounds in additional insurance premiums that they simply cannot afford, not least in the current pandemic. Many of these residents are key workers and are struggling. Some have retired and do not have the money to pay these bills.
I welcome the investment that the Welsh Government have promised to deal with these issues. In their Budget, in contrast to the Chancellor’s, there was a specific section on support for leaseholders. The Welsh Government are going to make an additional £32 million available to deal with fire and building safety defects, on top of the £10.6 million that they have already promised. They are very clear about their position and have been putting pressure on developers. I am pleased to say that in recent weeks we have seen some movement from Persimmon and Taylor Wimpey, which have both announced different funds. I am due to meet Taylor Wimpey in order to understand the full details in the days to come.
I want to come to the Minister. There has been a lack of co-operation with the Welsh Government, where there is need for co-operation across the UK because this is a UK-wide scandal. I have repeatedly asked the Minister for details on the new levy, the new tax and what new money will be made available for Wales, and I have had one-line answers from him. I hope he will get around the table with his officials and the Welsh Government Housing Minister, Julie James, who wants to work in a constructive way on the Building Safety Bill, as we have done on the Fire Safety Bill, so that we can get a solution that works for the whole UK, including my leaseholders and residents in Wales, and get them the answers they need.
At the moment they are left in the dark, with additional worries because they see the Secretary of State making big announcements and then brushing away anything to do with Wales. That is not the way to handle the situation. My leaseholders want answers, they want them now, they want justice and they want to work co-operatively across the UK, to find a solution to their terrible circumstances.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on bringing this important debate.
As the cladding scandal rolls on, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Government are not concerned enough with the physical safety or financial security of my constituents who are living every single day in unsafe housing. The Government’s position on the waking watch measures are just one example of that. Committing to the use of waking watches, as the National Fire Chiefs Council suggests, would mean committing to temporary measures that would go on indefinitely. In its written submission to the Public Bill Committee on the Fire Safety Bill, the Fire Brigades Union stated that it was unable to support the use of waking watches in that way, for fear that it would become
“a de facto permanent state of affairs.”
Temporary measures such as those have been in place since the Grenfell Tower tragedy in 2017. The word “temporary” is losing its meaning and I would be grateful if the Minister would address that in his response, because constituents are now faced with bankruptcy, with the cost of waking watches placed at their door.
The other matter I would like to raise is the overwhelming financial burden being placed on leaseholders who are also legally freeholders. I draw on the example of the Limehouse West estate in my constituency, to bring the matter to the Minister’s attention. Limehouse West was owned by the Canal & River Trust until November 2019, when about 60% of the leaseholders got together to buy the freehold. They did that for a number of reasons. They wanted to take charge of their estate, as the Canal & River Trust was extremely slow to respond and do anything around the estate, and my constituents did not want to pay the ground rent.
In the context of the ongoing cladding scandal, for those constituents, being their own freeholders included some benefits. There was no risk of the Canal & River Trust choosing wildly expensive or unnecessary remedial works and then saddling leaseholders with costs, or the Canal & River Trust doing nothing for years and the flats staying almost unsellable while waiting for the EWS1 certificates.
Many of my constituents on that estate are both freeholder and leaseholder. The Government say that leaseholders should not have to pay a penny. Who pays for any cladding and remediation works at Limehouse West and similar estates in my constituency, including for interim measures? If it is the freeholders, 60% of my constituents on that estate will bear the cost of the work that will benefit all of them, without any means of recovering those costs. Many of my constituents who are freeholders-leaseholders feel that it is very unfair. If it is the original developers who should pay, there is the difficult legal problem of making this happen. In the case of the estate, the developer is the absolutely awful Bellway, which tells me that it will not pay for something that was completed over 20 years ago.
I would be grateful if the Minister could help distinguish where leaseholders are also freeholders in response to the costs of interim measures and the wider costs of remediation works. Does he believe there should be parity between the burden placed on freeholders-leaseholders and leaseholders only where the freehold has been bought out by a party that is not related to the original developer in any way? I really believe that the building industry should have to take a greater burden, but in the absence of that, it would be great to get clarification from the Minister.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing the debate and on the eloquent way in which she introduced the subject. She went through the eye-watering costs, and she powerfully made the point that the costs are there week in, week out, until the defects are removed.
I state for the record my co-chairing of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, and I am a patron of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, which brings its expertise to the APPG and has helped to secure many of our experts, who between them have put together what I consider to be credible and fair proposals to try to deal with many of the issues that have been raised today. As things stand, what the Government are proposing is not credible or fair, and it will not deal with the plethora of building safety issues that leaseholders have been lumbered with.
When the Secretary of State made his announcement in the main Chamber, we were told that the Government’s plans would give certainty to leaseholders, but anyone who heard the Minister’s evidence before the Select Committee on Monday will have been left with the impression that certainty is one of the things that is clearly missing at the moment. We still do not know who will be the legally responsible body for the remediation, and it looks like there is still a huge risk that leaseholders will find themselves saddled with a debt that they have not consented to and should not be responsible for.
The reality is that we have moved from statements that Ministers have made in the past about the strong expectation on freeholders to put matters right, to the shameful position that we are now in, which is frankly a bit of muddle. However, it is looking more and more likely that freeholders will have their assets invested in and brought up to scratch at no cost and at no risk to themselves. I cannot put any other interpretation on Lord Greenhalgh’s statement on Monday to the Select Committee. He said:
“We are not asking any of the building owners to make any contribution to the remediation costs.”
I cannot take that to mean anything other than innocent leaseholders will end up picking up the bill. If that is where we end up, it surely means that the thousands of pounds that leaseholders are paying out to help keep themselves safe will be theirs alone to meet.
Despite two updates to the waking watch guidance and recommendations that interim alarms are installed, we have sites that have needed both a waking watch and interim alarms for years, costing the leaseholders a huge amount of money, which it seems they will never get back. After 44 months, there has been no impact assessment of the costs and benefits of such interim measures. Despite the Government producing data that they say would allow leaseholders to challenge the reasonableness of the costs, there is no evidence that leaseholders have been able to do so in the tribunal.
It is also worth pointing out that, in addition to the extra costs, leaseholders have found that their insurance premiums—even in buildings with no history of fire safety issues—have skyrocketed by an average of 400%, which is financially devastating. The money has to be paid by leaseholders every week, and they currently have no prospect of recovering it. These are people who, through no fault of their own, have been left in an impossible position. They deserve our support, and they deserve a solution. At the moment, they are having to pay three times: once for the property, once for the defects that we are talking about at the moment, and also for interim measures in the meantime. When the Minister responds, I want him to tell us where else people pay three times to get the same thing.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing the debate and on her continuing fight for leaseholders across her constituency. I also thank her for focusing this debate on an aspect of the building safety crisis that has received less attention in the House but is equally financially crippling, as she has argued, for leaseholders up and down the country.
In fact, I thank the 16 Members who have contributed very powerfully to the debate today. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) referred to the astronomical insurance costs piling on to leaseholders in her constituency. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) argued that manufacturers that have gamed the testing system should contribute by paying for interim measures and more. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) spoke about the nightmare that is the EWS1 system, and debt piled on top of debt in the midst of the covid crisis.
The costs for leaseholders have dominated the headlines over the past few years. We are nearly four years on from Grenfell, where 72 people tragically lost their lives, but today’s debate demonstrates the importance of breaking the costs down to expose exactly what constitutes the unimaginable debt being imposed on leaseholders for defects that they did not cause. People are literally going bankrupt.
Across the country, leaseholders are trapped in dangerous buildings. They are unsure of when their home will be made safe or how much that will cost them, but as soon as a building is judged to be unsafe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall pointed out, the costs start piling up. Additional safety measures, often in the form of 24-hour waking watches, are put in place, and leaseholders have little choice but to foot the bill—they either do so or become homeless—which is £174 million a year. Far from being temporary, as the word “interim” would suggest, there are waking watches that have now been in place for years, and they will probably be in place for even more years to come. The cost for each leaseholder is more than £500 a month on average and, in many cases, much, much more, as we have heard throughout today’s debate.
After refusing repeatedly to help leaseholders to cover these costs, the Government have now provided some—I say “some”—funding to fit alarm systems in some buildings, those that are 18 metres and above in height. That will reduce the need for a waking watch, but once again, the Government’s actions have come far too late and fall far short of what is needed. We know that waking watches are present in about 800 buildings, but the £30 million provided by the Government will cover at most 460—a figure far lower than the number of buildings with waking watches in London alone, as my hon. Friend pointed out. Does the Minister think that, when it comes to safety, this type of funding lottery is right? I am also concerned by reports that even after fire alarms are installed, evacuation managers are required in some blocks and, again, it is leaseholders who are left paying the bill. Can the Minister say whether he has looked into how many buildings this actually impacts?
Safety costs are, of course, not the only interim costs that leaseholders are incurring. A survey from the Association of Residential Lettings Agents—my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) referred to this— has found that insurance costs have risen on average by 400%. For one in 10 blocks, the cost of insurance is now 10 times or more what it was just a year ago. This is a picture that takes us from Sheffield, where a building is uninsurable, to Manchester, to Birmingham and to London. Hikes of 1,000%-plus are not uncommon.
Lord Greenhalgh, the Minister responsible for building safety, is due to meet insurers in yet another roundtable this week. Can this Minister confirm whether that roundtable will be the one that finally sorts out the problem and intervenes in the insurance market? Ultimately, the only way to stop interim costs continuing is to get buildings safe quickly. Some are still left worrying whether, when that day comes, they will be left with a bill not just for cladding, but for a host of fire safety defects not covered by the building safety fund, as pointed out by hon. Members in this debate today. Many buildings below 18 metres will now be saddled with an unwarranted and unwanted loan on top of interim costs—mortgages, service charges and much more.
We were promised details of the Government’s new funding at the Budget by the Minister himself, but yet again leaseholders were let down. The Chancellor did not even bother to mention cladding or the building safety crisis. Will the Minister take the opportunity today to do what the Chancellor did not do and provide us with details of the new arrangements, and how about updating my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) on co-operation with the Welsh Government? Costs for leaseholders go far deeper than the financial cost. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, mental health and stress are taking a toll. These are all consequences of the scandal as the bills pile up.
Nearly four years on after Grenfell, the very first step that the Government should have taken, which they still have not done, despite our repeated calls, was to establish the extent of the crisis and properly prioritise buildings according to risk. They have not provided sufficient upfront funding to start getting dangerous cladding and other materials off these buildings immediately. They have not protected leaseholders from the costs, as promised over and again. It is about time the polluter genuinely does pay for the building safety scandal. I hope the Minister will answer the questions asked by me and other hon. Members today.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) and all other Members who have spoken on behalf of their constituents and contributed so passionately and eloquently to this debate on a matter that we all care deeply about. The consequences of the Grenfell fire were catastrophic for the people and the community involved, and have been complex and wide ranging for many people across our country as a result. That is why—then, since and now—we are taking clear and decisive action to provide an unprecedented sum of money, more than £5 billion of taxpayers’ funds, for building safety to protect those most at risk.
In the short time that I have I will speak to the issue of cladding remediation and also to the title of the debate, interim fire safety costs. I will answer as many hon. Members’ questions as I can. If I do not complete that task in the allotted time, I am happy to follow up and write to Members subsequently.
The biggest cost facing leaseholders affected by building safety is cladding remediation. It is unacceptable for leaseholders to face those unaffordable costs. That is why we committed £1.6 billion of taxpayers’ money to accelerate the removal and replacement of unsafe cladding on the highest risk buildings—those over 18 metres in height—after the Grenfell tragedy. That was driven by the remediation of the most dangerous form of cladding, as the House will know—aluminium composite material cladding. I am pleased to say that as a result of that disbursement, 95% of those high-rise buildings with ACM have either begun or completed remediation work. It is also fair to say that the private sector has stepped up to the plate with respect to ACM, as something like 50% of the privately held buildings with ACM cladding have had the ACM removed as a result of the buildings’ owners, the developers or the warranty holders acting to replace the cladding.
However, we have not stopped there. We recognise that there are other forms of dangerous cladding on high-rise buildings and we have acted to remediate those through the building safety fund. Something like 500 registered buildings with other types of unsafe cladding are now proceeding with a full application to that fund, but we have not stopped there, either. We have allocated £3.5 billion to remediate all buildings above 18 metres that have unsafe cladding, an investment that totals over £5.1 billion. I suspect that when all of the taxpayer funds are added up, significantly more money will be spent by the taxpayer to remediate this problem.
I would also like to explain why 18 metres is the threshold trigger. It is because it is right that we prioritise those buildings that represent the greatest risk to residents in the event of a fire. Home Office analysis shows that buildings between 18 and 30 metres in height are four times more likely to suffer a fire with fatalities or serious casualties than any other apartment building. Building standards become more restrictive over 18 metres; the presumption on firefighting tactics changes over 18 metres. It is a well-established boundary used by the National Fire Chiefs Council in its operational guidance, it is used by the Building Research Establishment, and it is used in the independent expert guidance that we have received.
Why cladding? It is because we know that it acts as a fire accelerant and that is of greatest risk in high-rise blocks. That is a fact noted in the independent report by Dame Judith Hackitt and the independent advisory panel, to which Dame Judith spoke in a newspaper article, again just a few weeks ago. That is why we focus on cladding and why we focus on buildings over 18 metres in height.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members asked questions during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) asked for some clarification on what is covered by the remediation package that we have tabled. I can tell him that the remediation package includes works that are integral to the safe remediation and removal of cladding on buildings that are at risk, so it includes such things as fire cavity barriers. They, too, are included in the package, if they need to be remediated as part of the safe removal of the unsafe cladding.
The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) asked whether I would clarify that no leaseholder will be required to fund additional works as a condition of receiving Government funding for cladding remediation. I was pleased to answer a similar question that he had tabled in written form and I am pleased to confirm here in the Chamber that, as I said then, no leaseholder will be required to fund additional works as a condition of receiving Government funding for cladding remediation. I hope that that answer helps the right hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) asked whether we are engaged with the devolved Assemblies in Scotland and Wales. Yes we are, and we will continue to discuss the Building Safety Bill with them; I think we meet them on a monthly basis to do so.
The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) asked about leaseholders who are also freeholders, and whether they would be able to benefit from the waking watch fund. The answer is yes.
As a result of the package that we have pulled together—as a result of the £5.1 billion in public money that we are spending, the tax and levy that we will impose on the developers, and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ announcing a few days ago, in addition to its announcement last November, that the scope of the EWS1 form is going to be significantly reduced so that in total nearly 1 million households will now no longer have to face an EWS1 form and are effectively de-scoped from the risks that they had previously thought they might face—we are trying, I think successfully, to persuade the risk industry and the lending sector that they need to get risk, lending and valuation back into proper proportion. They must put aside the “computer says no” approach, properly assess the risk of buildings and their fire hazard, and properly ascribe value to them again, so that people living in those properties can get on with their lives. We are confident that as a result of that package the risk and lending industry will do that, and that we can begin to move on—and the people in those homes can begin to move on.
We have also discussed interim measures in the debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Vauxhall for addressing the point so eloquently. As I said, public safety is our first priority. We want to target funding where it is needed most, removing and replacing unsafe cladding to make the homes and the people who live in them safer more quickly. We have followed the National Fire Chiefs Council’s guidance to support the installation of waking watch or a common fire alarm where we need to ensure there are proper measures in place to guard against tragedy in the event of fire. However, we are also clear that those measures are a short-term strategy. They are a vital first step in ensuring that a building remains safe, but not an alternative—there is no alternative—to remediation. That is the reason we have spent so much time and are disbursing so much money to ensure that the problem is properly resolved.
As we have heard, too many waking watches have been in place for far too long. Leaseholders are being left to pick up often exorbitant bills. Data has shown that the most cost-effective means of protecting residents’ safety is through a fire alarm system. That, again, is evidence-based, and guidance is published by the National Fire Chiefs Council. That is why we are providing £30 million for the costs of installing an alarm system in high-rise buildings—again following the guidance of Dame Judith Hackitt and others—which have waking watch systems, where the costs are being passed on to residents; because those buildings have the highest risk and those residents face the highest costs. The fund opened on 31 January in all areas except for private sector buildings in Greater London. The deadline for applications is 14 March and the objective is to install those alarms as quickly as possible.
In contradiction to what the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) said, we are moving quickly to disburse those funds: £22 million has already been delivered to local or regional authorities, because they are best placed to know the buildings that most need local support. In London, subject to a mayoral decision, the Greater London Authority will administer the fund in Greater London, and the fund will open to private sector buildings in London on 18 March. We felt it was wrong to delay the implementation of the fund and wait for London, which of course has the largest number of high-rise and at-risk buildings. We did not think that other areas should have to wait. In Birmingham and the west midlands, for example, Mayor Andy Street has been quick on the case, and other authorities have done the same, so I encourage the GLA and the Mayor of London to take advantage of the funds and disburse them as quickly as possible, to ensure that the people of London who are facing exorbitant waking watch costs can take advantage of this opportunity.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall also talked about the number of eligible buildings in London. We are taking sensible, clear advice, and the National Fire Chiefs Council has identified 400 buildings across the country that are at risk of fire and in need of support for waking watch remediation, 216 of which are in London. That is why we are confident that the £30 million we have allocated will be sufficient to deal with the challenge of waking watch in those high-rise buildings where the costs are being passed on to the leaseholder.
There is a shared desire across the House to ensure that residents are safe in their homes, and that leaseholders are protected from unaffordable costs. That is why we introduced the scheme and the generous financial package to support leaseholders in buildings less than 18 metres. I suspect that the announcements made by RICS in the past several months will also support them, and that the lending industry and risk industry, getting itself back into proper proportion, will also support them.
These debates are vital as we work together to protect leaseholders, so I thank the hon. Lady again for raising the issue and for speaking so passionately and eloquently in support of her constituents. I thank all other right hon. and hon. Members for doing the same. This is a crucial issue for us. We will continue to address it and we will bring forward the building safety Bill as soon as possible.
Florence Eshalomi
I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions; all raised excellent points. That highlights the consensus of all Members across the House.
I thank the Minister for his comments, but respectfully, his argument about prioritising the high cost of remediation work is a sideshow, a false economy and morally bankrupt. We need to look at how we can help our constituents now. These interim costs will not go away. I look forward to writing to him to highlight some of the questions I posed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered residential leaseholders and interim fire safety costs.
Automatic Computer-based Decisions: Legal Status
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the legal status of automatic computer-based decisions.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I should apologise to a number of viewers of the debate for advertising its start time as 10.30 am, as opposed to 11 am. I would like to blame Microsoft Outlook, but in fact it was entirely my own fault.
I should also declare my interests. I am the chair of the Institute of Artificial Intelligence, which brings together legislators from around the world to discuss the implications of regulation of artificial intelligence. As Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, I call attention to our currently suspended but still live inquiry into the Post Office Horizon scandal, which I shall refer to today. Lastly, I draw attention to the fact that I used to be employed as a solicitor with a law firm now called Womble Bond Dickinson, which represented the Post Office on the Horizon issue, but confirm that I did not personally act for the Post Office on that issue. I should also thank Paul Marshall, a barrister at Cornerstone Barristers, whose note to me has underpinned much of my contribution today, and Stephen Mason, a research fellow at the University of London’s Institute for Advanced Legal Studies, and his colleagues for their analysis.
The Minister knows that I come to the debate as a technology evangelist—someone who advocates harnessing the potential of technology to modernise our economy and our public services. There is, of course, a much wider debate about the need to update our laws and regulations, and indeed how we run government, due to the technological revolution, but today I will focus on the specific and important issue of how the law of evidence applies to automated computer-based decisions. That has wide-ranging implications across the public and private sector.
The case of the Post Office’s failed private prosecution of more than 1,000 sub-postmasters for accounting errors created by a computer system and not by the sub-postmasters resulted in what looks to be one of the largest miscarriages of justice in our country—a tragedy for our justice system, but also a personal tragedy for the sub-postmasters involved and their families, all stemming from a computer system. I understand that one victim of the Post Office Horizon scandal pleaded guilty to false accounting merely because she had been overwhelmed by the errors and because she could not face the prospect of a jury trial for theft, which was being threatened by the Post Office at the time. Another was wrongly imprisoned when eight weeks pregnant. I stress this point because computer-based decisions can lead not only to not getting a credit card but to untold human suffering in the face of miscarriages of justice. That is just one example.
As the Minister knows, automated computer-based decision making is more and more widespread with every passing year. The problem is that computer systems are not continuously reliable; latent errors can occur frequently. Achieving reliability in a computer system in the first place is difficult; it is even harder to assess and assure that reliability on an ongoing basis. Indeed, artificial intelligence, in its capacity as a general-purpose technology across every aspect of our economy, means that the number of decisions coming from software-based systems will increase and increase, both in the private sector and in the delivery of public services. The Minister, of course, understands that. The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, which is part of his Department, published a report only last year on algorithmic decision making, which concluded:
“We must ensure decisions can be scrutinised, explained and challenged so that our current laws and frameworks do not lose effectiveness, and indeed can be made more effective over time.”
However, the fact is that, as highlighted in the judgments of Mr Justice Fraser in the Post Office Horizon case of Bates v. Post Office, our laws are dramatically out of date. This is evidenced by the very nature of the dates of the legislation involved for criminal issues, such as the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. We all recognise, of course, that technology has moved on a great deal since then. That Act repealed section 69(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which until its repeal meant that computer-derived documents could not be used as evidence unless it could be shown that, at all material times, the computer was operating properly. At the time, the Law Commission recommended the repeal because of concerns that it was increasingly difficult to meet that threshold—in other words, in 1999 it was increasingly difficult to show that a computer was operating properly at material times.
The change in the law left an absence of formal statutory guidance, resulting in the courts applying to computers the presumption of being properly functioning traditional machines. In practice, that means that a party can rely on the presumption that a computer was operating reliably at all material times—that is to say, that the computer was always right. It is for the objector—in the Post Office case, the sub-postmaster—to prove that the computer was not operating reliably. This is perhaps an obvious point, but in my view that results in an unacceptable imbalance of power.
The owners of computer-based decisions are usually big companies or the state. An advanced computer system is not the same as a factory-floor machine. In contrast, the objectors are employees, customers or citizens who have no real prospect of being able to prove that a computer system owned by a company or the Government was not operating reliably. That has very wide-ranging implications.
If people found it difficult to prove a computer was operating reliably in the early 1990s, we can only imagine how difficult it might be to do that today, not least when machine-learning algorithms come to conclusions for reasons even the computer programmer does not understand. If the Post Office had been required to prove that its computer system was operating reliably, it would not have been able to do so, because we now know that it was not, and sub-postmasters would not have been wrongly imprisoned. The legal presumption that a computer is always right is therefore unsafe and liable to cause significant harm and injustice.
I am not suggesting a return to the pre-1999 approach, but we need to find a new way to manage the risk and update our laws appropriately. As the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation said in its algorithmic decision-making report,
“we have a window of opportunity to get this right and ensure that these changes serve to promote equality, not to entrench existing biases.”
That is important, because if we are to harness the full potential of technology in our economy, the public need to have confidence in the way in which it is being used, and that there are appropriate rights of redress for those who fall foul of it.
I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) has also been engaging with this issue and has referred the matter to the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, in his capacity as chair of the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee. The reason I asked for a debate with the Digital team is my belief that this is broader than an issue merely for the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee. I am therefore calling on the Minister to use the powers of the Government Department responsible for digital and technology issues to refer this matter to the Law Commission for formal consideration. I look forward to hearing his response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
I congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee on securing this important debate. He is absolutely right to say that the potential of technology to enhance the decision-making process, in the public sector just as much as the private sector, is something that this Government are absolutely committed to not only getting the maximum out of, but getting right as well. He is also absolutely right to highlight that legislation from decades ago is perhaps not 100% where we would wish it to be.
First, let me say that I share the concerns raised by him and other Members about the specific example he has raised and the treatment of postmasters, who are vital members of the community, in this whole affair. I also acknowledge that it highlights essential legal issues. I will address those shortly, although I should perhaps start by saying that he has been comprehensive in his own circumnavigation of the issues at hand.
On Horizon, the Government recognise that the dispute has had a hugely damaging effect on the lives of the affected postmasters and their families. Its repercussions are still being felt today. Over the years, the Horizon accounting system recorded shortfalls in cash in branches. At the time, the Post Office believed that those shortfalls were caused by postmasters, leading to dismissals, recovery of losses and, in some cases, criminal prosecution. Many hon. Members, me included, have listened to the stories of the postmasters affected and have been deeply moved by the impact on their livelihoods, their finances and often their health.
A group of 555 of those postmasters, led by former postmaster Alan Bates, brought a group litigation claim against the Post Office in 2017. In the findings of Mr Justice Fraser, it is clear just how wrong the Post Office was in its relationship with postmasters and that there were clear failings in the Horizon system. As I will explain, the Government are taking steps through an independent inquiry to ensure that lessons are learned and that a full analysis takes place.
The Post Office reached a full and final settlement with the group litigation claimants in December 2019 and apologised for its failings. That settlement was an important step towards addressing the wrongs of the past, but it was only the start of a long journey for the Post Office to repair and strengthen its relationship with postmasters.
As part of the settlement, the Post Office agreed to set up the historical shortfall scheme, open to current and former postmasters who may have experienced and repaid Horizon shortfalls but did not participate in the group litigation. That is an important step in ensuring that all those who were affected have the opportunity to seek resolution.
A number of postmasters with criminal convictions have applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to have their cases referred for appeal. To date, the commission has referred 51 cases either to the Court of Appeal or to the Crown court. The Government welcome the decision made by the Crown court in December 2020 to overturn six of those convictions.
However, a number of cases—42 in total—are still to be heard in the relevant Appeal Court at the end of March. It would not be appropriate for the Government to comment on those cases while the courts are still considering them, but I assure hon. Members that the Post Office is co-operating with the commission to the fullest extent.
More broadly, we must ensure that such a situation can never be allowed to occur again. In September 2020, therefore, the Government launched the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry, an independent inquiry led by Sir Wyn Williams. Sir Wyn’s inquiry will work to understand fully what happened, gather available evidence and ensure that lessons have been learned so that this cannot occur again. The inquiry will look specifically at whether the historical shortfall scheme is being delivered properly. The Government look forward to receiving that report in the summer.
In recent years, however, a lot has changed on standards and ethics relating to the management of algorithms and data in general. The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) rightly pointed out the work of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. Crucially, that centre has not only “data ethics” but “innovation” in its title—those two things go hand in hand.
The centre was established by my Department in 2017, but that is not the only area in which we have implemented change. Substantial steps have been taken to consider and address deficiencies in the application of algorithms where that lies within the remit of the DCMS and, crucially, beyond. I am confident that we are in a much stronger position than when the worst excesses of the Horizon affair took place, but there is more work to do.
If an automated decision is based on personal data, the UK general data protection regulation already applies. It provides regulatory tools to safeguard data subjects and identified or identifiable persons in automated decision making. Organisations processing personal data must also adhere to strong transparency requirements. Organisations, including public authorities, should ensure that the algorithms they deploy and procure, where based on personal data, generate sound and impartial decisions, and that that should be considered before such algorithms are used.
The UK GDPR contains provisions for protecting the interests of data subjects and their data. In particular, data protection impact assessments are mandatory for data processing that is high risk and require organisations to weigh up the impacts on privacy of data processing activities, including automated decision making.
In addition, the Government have introduced non-legislative tools that will be important as we move towards a world where not just algorithms but the ability for computers to amend algorithms—artificial intelligence—become more commonplace. Let me run through some of them. We were the first Government to publish a data ethics framework, which is a set of principles to guide the design of appropriate data use in the public sector, aimed at anyone working with data in the public sector. We published an ethics, transparency and accountability framework for automated decision making, and we have commissioned the Government Digital Service to deliver the review of artificial intelligence adoption in the public sector. We have also published an AI guide for Government.
There are also published guidelines on AI procurement in collaboration with the World Economic Forum’s Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. It will inform and empower buyers in the public sector, helping them to evaluate suppliers and then confidently and responsibly procure the right AI technologies for the benefit of citizens. We have also published, along with the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Alan Turing Institute, “Explaining decisions made with AI”. This guidance gives organisations practical advice to help them explain the processes, services and decisions delivered or assisted by AI to the individuals affected by them. That is a crucial action that the hon. Member for Bristol North West mentioned.
Those various documents are updated with new thinking and insight from our public sector, civil society, industry and academic partners. We have also launched the new AI dynamic purchasing system, which is a framework that offers public sector customers a direct route to AI services in an emerging market, addressing ethical considerations when organisations buy AI services for use in the public sector.
The new and independent Regulatory Horizons Council has been appointed to scan the horizons for new technological innovations and provide the Government with impartial, expert advice on the regulatory reform required to support their rapid and safe introduction. More broadly, the Government are always monitoring how algorithms and data affect people’s lives. As they grow in importance in all our lives, we will consider what more we can do. That is why we are active in the international debates on algorithm and artificial intelligence regulations at the Council of Europe and, beyond that, at the OECD and in the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence.
The hon. Gentleman specifically asked whether the status of algorithms in the courts might be referred to the Law Commission, especially given the role played by the commission in first adjusting the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 on this topic. It is a suggestion worth very serious consideration, and my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and I are grateful for it. He will know that it is not in the Law Commission’s current three-year plan of work, and it will take considerable time to establish the necessary work in order to address the underlying legal issue.
While we consider that route, the Government are also investigating whether there may be faster methods that we can use to address the legal status of algorithms in a court of law—the hon. Gentleman mentioned that himself. For example, once the Court of Appeal has made a determination in respect to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the judiciary Criminal Procedure Rule Committee could consider making changes in this area. The courts are expected to make their determination shortly, after which I look forward to taking up the matter with the Ministry of Justice and the Lord Chief Justice, the chair of that committee.
To close, I thank you, Mr Hollobone, and the hon. Gentleman. This is the beginning of the next phase in an ongoing debate. It is a hugely important issue, and seizing these opportunities for the benefit of citizens and everyone around the world is in all our interests. It will be a complex and involving conversation, and I look forward to having more conversations with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I am afraid that the hon. Member does not have the right of reply in half-hour debates. I know it is confusing and I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but we enjoyed his initial contribution.
Question put and agreed to.
Maternal Mental Health
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate. Members participating physically and virtually must arrive for the start of Westminster Hall debates and are expected to remain for the entire debate. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically are asked to clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered maternal mental health.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and indeed to have Members participating virtually in this afternoon’s debate. Maternal mental health should be among our principal concerns. Pregnancy and birth can be the trigger for poor mental health among those who did not previously suffer from mental health problems, and they are a major factor in the escalation of existing ones. The first two years of a child’s life are vital in their development, and the right support and guidance for families at this time can make a big difference to their long-term outcomes.
For many women, becoming a mother presents psychological challenges. They might have experienced conflict or abuse in their own childhoods, which resurface when they contemplate the reality of becoming a parent themselves. They might be used to setting high standards for themselves and derive their sense of worth from their ability to meet them, but find that their baby does not comply with their drive to meet their parenting targets. They might simply be overwhelmed by the awesome responsibility of having another human being entirely dependent upon them, and fear that they do not have what it takes to be able to be an effective parent.
Because everybody has had a mother at some point in their lives, we all, knowingly and unknowingly, have formed a picture of what a mother is and what a mother should do. These assumptions about motherhood crowd around every new mother, complicating her own feelings about her new baby and her new role. New motherhood can be extremely lonely, especially in the dark, still hours of the early-morning feeds, and that loneliness creates a fertile space for doubts and anxieties.
Lockdown has exacerbated so many of these issues. I asked for today’s debate so that we can talk about the impact of covid on the mental health of new mothers, and to urge the Government to prioritise this as we come out of lockdown. Loneliness has been a major issue for almost all of us during the past year, but the lack of contact has been particularly acute for those who have had babies during this time. I am enormously grateful to the parliamentary digital engagement team for organising a survey in advance of this debate to ask members of the public for their experiences. We had more than 11,000 responses, with some extremely moving testimony among them. I thank everybody who took the time to share their experiences, but especially those whose experiences were difficult and painful.
The overwhelming theme of the responses was how difficult isolation had made the experience of giving birth and caring for a newborn. I was particularly struck by the experience of Zilia from the south-east when she told us:
“All appointments attended alone and in sterile conditions. Childbirth alone, no visitors in hospital, no family able to meet your newborn and help you out thereafter. Just the most isolating and lonely experience I have been through.”
Reflecting on my own experiences, I overcame the early challenges of motherhood with a combination of a supportive partner present at the birth, a delighted family who rallied round with practical help, professional health support delivered through home visits, and a peer group of other new mothers in the neighbourhood. To have been denied any one of those would have made the job of adjusting to motherhood considerably harder. We now have thousands of mothers battling through the early months of motherhood without having had any of those essential forms of support, and this has taken its toll on their mental health.
This is how Emily from Scotland describes the impact on her:
“My mental health is awful. I have never felt so lonely or isolated. I shielded from March until June last year and saw nobody for my second trimester other than my husband. My husband’s family are yet to meet our baby, who is our first, and he is coming up to six months old. I have developed post-natal OCD, which is horrendous, and I am still waiting for professional help to cope with this.”
Other covid-19 factors that have worsened the experience for new mothers in lockdown are financial uncertainty, lack of access to childcare, and bereavement. The industries worst hit by the lockdown employ a large proportion of females. Some 20% of mothers have lost their jobs during the pandemic, compared with 13% of fathers. The closure of schools has left many mothers trying to juggle home schooling for older children with looking after a newborn, and many families are dealing with the trauma of losing family members to covid.
The impact of the pandemic has changed the way that we all access healthcare, as resources are prioritised towards emergency admissions and efforts are made to reduce contact. In some parts of our healthcare system, it has led to an increase in digital and telephone consultations. In many parts of the country, this has included perinatal care. Many of the respondents to the survey reported receiving follow-up care in this way, including Jennifer in the west midlands, who reported:
“Very limited midwifery care. I didn’t see a midwife at all until I was 28 weeks. No health visitor service whatsoever. Apart from one very brief phone call, I have had no contact from a health visitor. My baby has not been weighed since 10 days old, and they are now almost six months. Overall, my pregnancy experience has been unnecessarily stressful and left me feeling constantly anxious and unsupported.”
In my conversations with new mothers in my constituency, many of them brought up how difficult they found the lack of professional support. They were unable to access guidance about breastfeeding or sleeping, and unable to ask questions or seek reassurance. Many of them found that they experienced much greater anxiety about their babies as a result. I have at least one case in my constituency where the lack of a physical examination led to a major genetic condition being missed—one in which, tragically, early intervention can make a significant difference to the quality of life.
The survey we conducted found that, of those mothers who had received an online consultation, 60% said they were not affected, compared with only 3% who said they were affected. I have spoken to the Institute of Health Visiting and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and they have confirmed to me how vital such face-to-face support is for new mothers in the first weeks. The value of the home visit is that the mother does not need to identify the need for help and then go out and seek it for herself; someone comes to her and asks her how she is. A trained and experienced health visitor can observe mother and baby and identify whether additional support is needed. That kind of support cannot be replicated on Zoom or over the phone. Furthermore, as the Royal College of Psychiatrists has highlighted to me, it is much harder to identify whether there are issues of domestic violence or coercive control between a mother and her partner when contact is one-dimensional.
The impact of perinatal mental illness can have long-lasting impacts on families. Stephanie from the east midlands told our survey:
“I have previously not had any mental health issues, but I have really struggled with my mental health since having my baby. I have severe anxiety and now perinatal OCD. I have intense fear and stress about leaving my child, and I am not receiving anywhere near enough support.”
The long-term societal cost of perinatal mental ill health is estimated at £8.1 billion annually for each one-year cohort of births, and about three quarters of that is the cost of the impact on children. The financial value of early interventions to support struggling families is clear, and there is also the very human value of building loving and supportive families.
We already have the structures and mechanisms to provide support through the health visiting service. I should declare an interest here: my mother was a health visitor for many years, so I have learned at first hand from her about the times when a friendly knock on the door made all the difference to an overwhelmed new mother. However, it is a service that was already chronically underfunded and understaffed before the pandemic took hold. There has been a 31% decrease in the health visiting workforce since 2015, and many local authorities target their scarce resources at those deemed most at risk.
I believe that only a universal health visiting service can properly identify and support mothers who are suffering from poor perinatal mental health, and that the Government should allocate sufficient resources to enable this to happen. We need better mental health support for all ages and stages, and better training throughout our health service to identify and support those who are struggling, but providing support to new mothers should be a priority, because of the long-term impacts that their poor mental health can have on the development of their children and on the rest of their family.
The first step is to address the shortage of health visitors. There cannot be quality service provision when 65% of health visitors have case loads of more than 500 children each. We also need to urgently address the staffing shortage among midwives, who have a critical role to play in supporting women’s emotional wellbeing during pregnancy, childbirth and beyond. The Royal College of Midwives has found that there is currently a shortage of 3,000 midwives. Alongside that, we need to increase training and specialist mental health support for midwives, so they are well equipped to deliver the necessary support.
The pandemic has forced us to use digital tools in every area of our lives. We may find that we continue to use some of them even after face-to-face contact is possible again. If I could make one plea to the Minister, however, it would be that we should not allow digital and telephone perinatal check-ups to become the new accepted standard. The Government should fund and resource home visits by health visitors to all new mothers so that we can properly address the issue of maternal mental health.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson, in this new Chamber, which is a first for us all. I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing the debate. It is good that we have had a number of debates in recent months about maternal challenges during the pandemic, the impact on families and the impact on the mental health of parents and children. There is little that is more important, frankly. It is something that we will have to spend a lot of time concentrating on as we build out of the pandemic in the coming months.
Let me declare my interests. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for conception to age two: first 1001 days. Given the hon. Lady’s comments, I think we have a new recruit. If she is not already one of our members, I would be delighted to welcome her along. It is a very active group. I also chair the all-party group for children, and until recently I was the chairman of trustees of the Parent-Infant Foundation charity, which concentrates on the initial 1,001 days and the attachment between parent carers and their children.
I was impressed by the response from the digital teams in the House. It was a very good exercise. As the hon. Lady said, 11,265 responses is not to be sniffed at. Alas, the responses were all too familiar. We have heard similar anecdotes from our constituents about what has been going on during lockdown. There were responses about parents, and particularly mums, feeling lonely. They feel isolated in hospital, particularly if they have to stay in for any length of time because of complications. They have problems even getting their partners—the fathers—to be able to visit them. They feel isolated from family support networks that we normally take from granted. They feel isolated from new mum and baby groups. One of the respondents to the survey called them a safety valve where completely new mums, in particular, learn from other mums—either new mums or experienced mums—and the babies interact too. It was interesting that, for colleagues who gave birth during the lockdown, it was several months before their babies were actually able to meet another baby, and there was a bit of a shock factor there. We perhaps underestimate the impact of that social contact from the very earliest stages after a child is born.
In particular, as the hon. Lady mentioned, there is the isolation from health professionals on a face-to-face basis. I know that there have been a lot of substitute virtual visits, but they are not a substitute and they must not become the norm. We need to build back our health visitor numbers, as we did so well in the coalition Government between 2010 and 2015, when we produced 4,200 additional health visitors, who were absolutely invaluable. They are the friendly face that new parents will welcome across a threshold, where they may be more suspicious of a social worker or other care workers. They are also an early warning system for problems that may be going on with a new parent and ultimately any safeguarding issues.
A report that the First 1001 Days Movement produced last year, called “Working for babies”, said that services supporting nought to twos were highly depleted during the first spring lockdown last year. The majority of services for nought to twos did not bounce back quickly as lockdown measures were eased. We need to make sure that mistake is not made again this time.
This lockdown has been especially stressful for first-time mums, single mums, and families having to balance working remotely, new forms of working and working covid-safely, and juggling home schooling if they have other children too—thank goodness all my children are above school age and we have not had that additional challenge. Even before the covid pandemic, at least one in six mums suffered from some form of perinatal mental illness—commonly anxiety disorders and depression. We know that the pandemic and lockdown have impacted on the mental health of just about everybody, but particularly on that cohort of mums.
A survey by the excellent baby charity Bliss found that, among its members who had received neonatal care during the pandemic, 90% of parents said they felt more isolated as a result of having a baby in neonatal care during the pandemic; 70% said their mental health was negatively affected as a result of the experience; 56% said the mental health of their partner and wider family had been affected; and 47% said they were not offered support for their mental health while their baby was in neonatal care. We know that, in extremis, suicide is the biggest cause of maternal death. We must do so much more to ensure that women do not get in that position and that support is there and accessible.
The shortage of health visitors is a false economy. I have always said that; we had a debate specifically on that last year. I pay tribute in particular to Cheryll Adams, who set up and has led the Institute of Health Visiting. She is retiring at the end of the month. The service she has given to that area has been extraordinary and has informed many debates in this place. I put on the record our thanks and gratitude to her.
There is also the whole issue of increased domestic abuse during pregnancy. The figure that I always find hard to take on board is that a third of domestic abuse happens during pregnancy as well, and we know that domestic abuse has gone up during the pandemic, so all the additional pressures on women who are about to give birth or who have just given birth are extraordinary.
The cost of perinatal mental illness, as calculated by the Maternal Mental Health Alliance some years ago—it still holds true, and today it is probably an underestimate—was £8.1 billion each and every year. On top of that, the cost of child neglect is £15 billion, so we as taxpayers are paying £23 billion-plus into the health service to get it wrong. To prevent us getting it wrong, if we spent a fraction of that on the support services—the health visitors and those networks—being there in the first place, that would be money well spent and well saved.
Of course, the key is good attachment between babies and their parents or primary carers from those very earliest stages and during conception, hence the founding of the First 1001 Days Movement. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) launched the 1,001 critical days manifesto back in, I think, 2012, which was signed up to by colleagues across parties, the royal colleges, clinicians, academics and children’s charities alike. It is still relevant today.
To quote research by the First 1001 Days Movement and the Parent-Infant Foundation—I pay tribute in particular to Sally Hogg, who does so much of the good work there—it is estimated that 10% to 25% of young children experience significantly distorted relationships with their main carer or carers, and from that a range of poor social, emotional and educational outcomes in childhood and across the life course can be predicted. Maternal mental illness in pregnancy and the early years of a child’s life can have adverse effects on the child’s brain development and long-term outcomes. Maternal mental illness can affect children both directly and indirectly. For example, exposure to stress hormones in the womb is thought to affect the child’s developing stress response systems, and mental illness after birth can affect a mother’s ability to care for her baby, her parenting style and her developing relationship with her baby. Even relatively mild mental illness, if untreated, can inhibit a mother’s ability to provide her baby with the sensitive, responsive care that they need.
This, again, is a statistic that I always use. If a 15 or 16-year-old teenager is suffering from some form of depression or low-lying mental illness, there is a 99% likelihood that that child’s mother suffered some form of perinatal mental illness—the connection is that close. So why are we not doing more to support the mother before and soon after she gives birth? The implications of not doing so will be with her child and her for many years to come, and often into adulthood for the child.
It is also important to note that although perinatal mental illness increases the risk of disruptions in early relationships, they are not inevitable. Some mothers can continue to give their babies the sensitive, responsive care they need, particularly with the right support—and good, effective support can be had, if it is available. That is the problem: it is not always there, or not always there at the right time or in the right place.
Other risk factors put early relationships and infant mental health at risk, including families where fathers or other care-givers have serious mental health problems themselves. Again, we underestimate the impact of becoming a father, particularly for the first time, on the mental health of dad. In most cases this is a joint partnership, but fathers often get overlooked. They often get excluded from the whole neonatal process within hospitals, as well. They need looking after too, because if they can be looked after, they can look after their partner and there is a mutual benefit from all of that. We need to do more for fathers.
The NHS long-term plan includes a commitment to expand access to evidence-based parent-infant interventions within specialist perinatal mental health services, which is indeed welcome. It will ensure that attention is given to the parent-infant relationship alongside the mother’s own mental health when mothers have moderate or severe mental health problems. We must not just look at the child or the mum in isolation; we are looking at the bonded family.
However, access to mental health services for babies should be dependent on the risks to their mental health and not contingent on other factors, such as their mother’s mental health needs. So, the NHS long-term plan for England also committed to improving access to specialist services for all children from 0 to 25, but delivering that commitment requires specialist provision for all babies who need it, as they are children, too. Such provision would need to be delivered by parent-infant specialists. However, the NHS long-term plan says nothing explicitly about specialist mental health services for the youngest children in their own right.
The solution is that we need specialised parent-infant relationship teams providing therapeutic support where a baby’s development is most at risk due to severe, complex and/or enduring difficulties in their relationships. Such teams focus on the relationship between a baby and his or her parents or care-givers as the main way to improve infant mental health. However, there are fewer than 40 specialised parent-infant relationship teams in the whole of the UK, and most babies live in an area where these services just do not exist; vast areas of the country have no provision.
One of the aims of the Parent-Infant Foundation charity, which was set up by the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire, is setting up parent-infant projects around the country, where practitioners are available, to work on the attachment of parents and their children. We just need it to be mainstream across the whole of the national health service.
As the Royal College of Psychiatrists has said, the need for more perinatal psychiatrists to work in these services is crucial. These specialist services need a highly trained specialist workforce, but the workforce census in 2019 showed that 13% of consultant and perinatal psychiatrist positions remained unfilled. Without more psychiatrists, ambitious plans to transform and expand services will be put at risk.
We are soon to have the Leadsom review, if I may call it that; it does not really ring true as “the South Northamptonshire review”. The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire is producing the review; hopefully it will be published later this month. I have been privileged to play a part in it, and chaired a parliamentary advisory group.
Absolutely key to that review are a joined-up support service between the NHS, local government and other key professionals, to give that wraparound service to parents in those crucial early months and years; a digital record, so that all those professions are working from the same information, rather than every visit to mum being a new visit; and a national template of the quality that we need to reach, but with local implementation, so that a service in Richmond, although it may look a bit different from a service in my part of the world on the Sussex coast, is none the less required to produce quality outcomes and clear the same threshold.
We look forward to that report in the coming weeks and months, and I very much hope that the Government will take it on board and produce the goods, because little, if anything, is more important than the welfare, good health and good mental health of our children. And a child is given the very best opportunity—the best start in life—if their parents are in a safe and stable place as well.
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
In order to call everyone, I wonder if I might ask all Back Benchers to stick to around five minutes in their contributions, please.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this important debate today.
Maternal mental health problems are prevalent and are not talked about often enough. One in five women will develop some form of mental health problem during their pregnancy or in the year after giving birth, and research suggests that as many as seven in 10 mothers will underplay the severity of their feelings, due to stigma surrounding mental health.
Sadly, all of this has been exacerbated by the impact of the pandemic. As someone who has spoken in the House about prenatal depression while pregnant with my first child, this is an extremely important issue for me.
From a personal perspective, my second child was only four months old when we went into the first lockdown. My plans for baby yoga, music classes and meeting other mums for coffee to get through the sleep deprivation were suddenly out the window. Instead, the ensuing weeks were spent with him mostly in a sling while I home-schooled the eldest. With much of his little life spent in lockdown, his one-year check was done on the phone, he has not been weighed since he was six weeks old, and I cannot remember the last time he saw a health visitor.
Yet I feel lucky: lucky that he was born just before the pandemic hit, so my husband was able to be there the whole time I was in labour; lucky that he was my second child, so at least I had a vague idea about what I was doing; and lucky that we had those four months together before going into lockdown. For many of my constituents, having a baby during lockdown has been incredibly challenging. One of my constituents, Nina, wrote to me last autumn:
“I was pregnant for the entirety of the first lockdown and had to attend all scans for the twins I was carrying alone. This was bearable when I looked around and saw everyone making huge sacrifices.
When I gave birth to the twins in August, continued restrictive rules meant that my husband could not be with me on the labour ward. Add to the mix a fast-moving induction and I ended up giving birth to my babies with only midwives I’d never seen before in the room.
My husband simply wasn’t able to make it in time. If he’d been able to stay on the ward I would have had his much needed support through labour. As it was, I have had to recover mentally from a fairly traumatic experience.
And yet...I brought the twins home while everyone was still ‘eating out to help out’. How can this be right? Why do women’s and particularly mothers’ needs fall so far down the Government’s priority list?”
Nina’s story and many others show the profound impact that the pandemic has had. In September, the Government allowed families with a child under one to form a support bubble and the NHS now allows the birth partner to be present during labour and the birth, but for many families those changes came too late. The Government must be ambitious in their plans to support the babies born in lockdown and their families. That will be a huge task. For example, if health visitors are to catch up with the huge backlog in missed face-to-face appointments and provide a full service, proper funding will be needed. They provide an amazing service and invaluable support to parents, but about one in five were lost between 2015 and 2019 due to public health budget cuts.
As a result, in February, before the pandemic hit, almost a third of health visitors reported that they were responsible for between 500 and 1,000 children. The Institute of Health Visiting considers the optimal maximum for the work to be fully effective to be 250 children. Similarly, since 2010, cuts of 66% have led to the loss of over 1,000 Sure Start and children’s centres, which provide huge support to families, particularly those who are vulnerable or hard to reach. Funding needs to be restored, so that there is a one-stop shop for parents to get support for themselves and their children.
Early years and nursery providers provide huge support for parents, but according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, they ran at a significant loss during the first lockdown, receiving less than £4 of income for every £5 of costs. In addition, playgroups and baby activities are often run by small businesses, and restrictions mean that their doors have largely been shut. I would like the Government to look urgently at sector-specific grant funding for early years, to maintain the viability of the sector as we come out of the pandemic.
It is clear that the added stresses of lockdown and the pandemic have exacerbated maternal mental health problems. A recent UK-wide study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research found that during the first lockdown, 43% of new mothers met the criteria for clinically relevant depression and 61% met the criteria for anxiety. Given the consistent evidence that shows that postnatal depression and anxiety are linked to a range of negative outcomes for children’s health, development and behaviour, it is imperative that the Government do everything they can to protect maternal mental wellbeing.
That begins with many of the measures that I have outlined, but also by improving and maintaining access to perinatal mental healthcare. Although NHS resources and staff are under huge strain, investment is needed to ensure that mental health interventions can be timely and effective to prevent the escalation of symptoms and the formation of a larger burden on the NHS and other public services. That is not beyond our capabilities, and we owe it to the babies born in lockdown and their families to put that at the top of the agenda.
[Sir Edward Leigh in the Chair]
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this important debate.
We have heard some of the shocking figures on maternal mental health and we have heard about the evidence that new mothers have experienced poor maternal mental health as a result of the pandemic. “Maternal mental health and coping during the COVID 19 lockdown in the UK” from the covid-19 new mum study found that more than half of new mothers reported feeling down, lonely or irritable, and that 71% reported feeling worried since the beginning of the first lockdown.
Mental health service guidance from the Royal College of Psychiatrists sets out that perinatal mental health care continues to be essential during covid-19, and that face-to-face contact will be necessary in some circumstances. The Government and the NHS have said that mental health services, including the specialist perinatal services, remain very much open for business during the pandemic, and that providers have looked to how they can maximise the use of digital and virtual channels. I agree that that is not ideal, but I acknowledge that hospital trusts in difficult circumstances have worked extremely hard to reach out to mums.
In Cornwall, the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust looks after 4,000 babies and mums every single year. I thank the midwifery team at the RCHT for looking after me and both my babies, one surviving and thriving and one whom, unfortunately, we lost. The trust has been reviewing visiting continually throughout the pandemic, and the latest arrangement of their services is that birthing partners are now available, that both parents may be in neonatal units at any time, and that partners may now attend the 12-week and 20-week scans. If other scans are required, they may also arrange that. That has come on from where we were during the first lockdown, so things are improving.
International data, from high, middle and low-income countries, suggests that perinatal illness is more prevalent among rural women. That is the second dimension that I would like to add to today’s debate, if I may. Cornwall is predominately rural, and the pandemic has absolutely exacerbated an already hidden issue, bringing it into the limelight.
For a new mum who lives rurally, it is very difficult to access baby groups and other new mums, to share stories and get peer support, mostly because of transportation issues. I agree that all new mums are suffering those difficulties in lockdown, but it is particularly an issue for rural new mums. Often, socioeconomically, rural new mums are on a lower income, so they cannot afford to get anywhere. It is also difficult for health visitors to get out and visit them.
When I was a brand-new mum, I did not get a midwife follow-up appointment; I had a phone call. My notes, I think, stated that I was well supported and absolutely fine, and yet eight months later I was diagnosed with postnatal depression. I did not know that I had postnatal depression; I thought I was tired, that I was not doing it properly and that I was not living up to being a real mum, and I did not know who to talk to. Even though I had close family support, I felt that I was not doing it right, until I broke one day. I saw my GP, and at that point I was diagnosed with postnatal depression. Luckily for me, not being in lockdown, I was able to go to group peer support and to meet other mums who were feeling exactly the same way, so I realised that I was perfectly normal and that it was something I would work through.
It is important that we recognise that that will be a growing problem because of covid. For a new mum, it is all about talking—we want to speak to other new mums, and when we cannot do that, we can get lost in our own head and everything feels a bit worse.
I have been working cross-party, and with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on the early years review, which I am privileged to be a part of at this late stage. It started its life, as we know, as the review into the first 1001 days. I will not repeat the words of my hon. Friend, who articulated this work wonderfully, but I look forward to the review coming, hopefully later this month.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire was quoted as saying that the fact that babies have had little social contact during the first lockdown is clearly a bad thing, and that the repercussions are not yet known. Tackling some of the awful experiences of babies during lockdown and looking at how families can benefit from some of the positive experiences will be at the heart of the review. I look forward to its findings and hope that we can improve conditions for new parents and new babies because of it.
It is my sincere hope that when the new review’s findings come forward and policies are formulated, all parties will take a long-term view of all the important issues that we are discussing today, and that will come out as part of the review. I want to ensure that policy makers cease to use something as vital as the best start in life for babies and the mental health of mothers as a political football. Hopefully we can formulate something wonderful, so that when we look back at it in 20 years’ time we can all see how successful it has been and be very proud of it.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I commend the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing the debate, because the three quarters of a million women who have given birth during this pandemic have not only experienced all the challenges that every woman experiences when they give birth, but have had those problems magnified. Other Members have already set out issues around isolation, anxiety and the need for proper, professional support, as identified by the excellent piece of work done by the Digital Engagement Team for the hon. Lady, which all of us who have been new mums can really relate to. I can only imagine how much more these issues can affect people when they have no family members to call on and no mothers’ group to allow them to pick up personal experience from others who have gone through it before them.
Outside of the pandemic, around one in five women experience perinatal mental health problems, which impact not only them but their children, and as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, that can cost the economy some £8 billion every year. I will add to the debate the conditions that create a higher likelihood of mental health problems emerging in the first place, which according to research is particularly stressful life events.
We know that, during the pandemic, people have been highly anxious—far more than they might have been otherwise. Indeed, some research suggests that around three in four pregnant women have had significant anxiety, and up to 40% have experienced depression. One of the biggest anxieties for any new parent has to be money—finance, income; making sure that they can care for their new family. Most families now have two working parents, and families depend on both incomes, so the fact that more than 50,000 pregnant women a year suffer discrimination that leaves them with no option but to leave their job should sound alarm bells, not only for our economy, but for its potential to trigger mental health problems, depression or anxiety.
Work by organisations such as Maternity Action and Pregnant Then Screwed shows worrying increases in reports of pregnant women losing their jobs during the pandemic, and we know that more women have been impacted, in terms of job loss, during the pandemic than in other similar economic events. The reported figure of 50,000 pregnant women each and every year leaving their jobs is likely to be the tip of the iceberg, because as well as those reporting leaving their jobs, there will be many more who are silenced from speaking out by non-disclosure agreements.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has done so much to support new mothers, but some women are still let down in the workplace, so as part of this debate I urge her to consider employment policies too, particularly given the impact of coronavirus on women’s employment. No matter how good my right hon. Friend is at her job, in terms of putting support in place, if pregnant women are concerned about losing their jobs, even if they do not do so—and being pushed out of work is not uncommon in the workplace when women become pregnant—the job of the Department of Health and Social Care will be severely undermined if these issues are not addressed.
Other countries have looked at this closely, and I believe we can learn from their experiences. Germany, with a similar economy to ours, prohibits making pregnant women and new mums redundant, for the good of women, their children and their families. I have put into a ten-minute rule Bill the idea of adopting the German laws here in the UK, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look at it to see whether she could lend it her support.
My final point is that mental health problems on the arrival of a child do not just impact women. Up to one in four fathers may experience mental health problems in the year after the birth of a child. It can be difficult for fathers to manage the transition, and we need to ensure that support is there. In other countries, shared parental leave policies, on a use-it-or-lose-it basis, have been proven to help fathers with that transition. Will the Minister look at why we are still awaiting action following the review in the UK of this policy, which would explicitly help fathers to tackle these difficult issues?
My hon. Friend the Minister has done so much, but she needs her colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to do more. It is no good saying that we have good maternity protections when the Government know that probably 50,000 women a year lose their job because of how they are treated in the workplace. I ask the Minister to speak to her colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to look at effective broader policies impacting on pregnant women at work, because one of the most effective maternal health policies that the Government could adopt is stopping women being made redundant in the first place.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. Because Members have gone on beyond five minutes, I have to reduce the time limit again, otherwise not everybody will get in. The time limit is now four minutes.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am glad to have the opportunity to take part in this important debate, and I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing it.
Most mums look forward to having a baby, and the birth of a child to family, friends and people we know is something that we all greet with joy, pleasure and anticipation for the future of the child. We know that for some women, however, pregnancy and the time after birth can, sadly, be difficult. They may not have been able to talk to people about it when everyone imagines that they are having a happy time. This year, it may have been more difficult than ever as a result of covid-19 and the social isolation that it has brought for so many. They have not had the support of, or been able to share the joy and workload with, family and friends, and it has been difficult to get the face-to-face support that they really need. Let us not forget that many have lost out on financial support that has been offered to others, as the campaigning organisation, Pregnant Then Screwed, has evidenced.
Low mood, anxiety and depression are common mental health problems that occur during pregnancy and in the year after childbirth. The pain that these conditions cause women and their families is significant, as is the negative impact on their health and wellbeing. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists states that up to one in five women develop mental health problems during pregnancy or in the first year after childbirth, and around a quarter of all maternal deaths between six weeks and a year after childbirth are related to mental health problems.
Sometimes, hearing in this House the lived experience of constituents really brings home the issues that we are discussing, and the need to address them. A constituent of mine has asked me to tell her story.
“In 2017 I became a Mum for the first time, I knew that I needed to provide for my child but I felt no more attachment than for someone I had just met. I started to Google ‘how to have my child adopted’ and felt like I was a failure as a woman.
I started to have panic attacks, I’d imagine walls falling on my child, people grabbing her and running away. I would lock myself in the house and was terrified to be alone.
It was when I started to record the times that the trains went past my house that realised that I was seriously contemplating suicide. I went to the GP who made an urgent mental health referral although it was five months after my child was born that I actually got any help…and…anything was done. I was diagnosed with severe post-natal depression and have been receiving help ever since.
When my second child arrived, I realised just how traumatic my first experience has been. The shame and anguish have been replaced by joy and love, and I was finally able to have those special moments with the newborn that people romanticise.”
Since that time, the local Newcastle Gateshead clinical commissioning group has invested in a specialist perinatal mental health service. That provides support, advice and planning of care and treatment following delivery, reducing the risk of significant illness and the potential for in-patient care. However, many women are not seeking the help they need, and the pandemic has had a huge impact on loneliness, making those early days so difficult.
This is an important debate and we must do much more to support women struggling with their mental health, before and after the birth of their child, to allow parenthood to be the joyful, if challenging and tiring, experience that it should be.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for introducing this debate. I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cerebral palsy
Maternal mental health has been one of the hidden impacts of the pandemic. Being a new mam is a special time for any woman. However, it can also be overwhelming and generally challenging. In normal times, many women receive support from their family and friends, who are there to offer invaluable guidance. However, for the past year, the public health restrictions needed to tackle covid-19 have meant that many women have had to make this journey on their own.
I had my first child, Maria, at 21. The advice from my mam was crucial in spotting the missed stages in her early development, which enabled her cerebral palsy diagnosis to come much sooner than it otherwise would have. I cannot put into words how valuable her support was following such heart-rending news. It was thanks to my family and friends that I felt confident enough to go on and have two more children.
It strikes me that if Maria had been born during this pandemic, the personal support I received from my mam and health visitors would have been much more limited. My heart truly goes out to those who have become mothers during the pandemic. I cannot imagine the impact that isolation is having on their mental health. I worry that sadly some may choose not to extend their families in future.
The pandemic has particularly affected those whose babies have received neonatal care, with more than 90% of parents who responded to a Bliss survey saying that they felt more isolated due to having a baby in neonatal care during the pandemic, and 70% saying that their mental health was negatively impacted as a result of their experience. The situation has not been helped by the fact that Bliss research also found that psychological support for parents experiencing neonatal care was inconsistent at best. Around half the parents said they were not offered mental health support during or after this care.
The impact of negative maternal mental health goes beyond the parent and is not limited to the short term. As we have heard, the first 18 to 24 months of a baby’s life are critical in their development, and the stress and trauma of poor maternal mental health has the potential severely to impact a child’s life chances.
In parts of the north-east, where my constituency is located, existing health inequalities mean that some children begin their lives with inferior life chances to those from less deprived regions. We simply cannot afford to place further obstacles in the way of their development and risk losing a whole generation. As a result of the pandemic, we are facing a potential mental health crisis in Britain and maternal mental health is significant.
It is unreasonable to suggest that, as a society, we could experience a collective trauma on this scale without it impacting on mental health. Inevitably, that will be challenging, especially when the existing foundations of mental health care in the country are already weak. It was therefore incredibly disappointing that health services were absent from the Chancellor’s Budget last week. He could do with learning that the damage to public health from the pandemic will not fix itself.
It seems fitting that the debate is happening in the week in which International Women’s Day falls. Not only have women consistently stepped up to the plate during the pandemic, with little to no reward, but they have shown resilience in coping with one of life’s toughest challenges—becoming a mam. We owe it to the women in our constituencies to have the best mental health support out there, for what is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful yet challenging life experiences they will face.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this important debate.
It was during a recent Zoom call with friends that the real, current issues affecting maternal mental health struck home for me. [Inaudible.] All of us on the call with her that evening were both upset for her and inspired by her attitude. As an expectant mother, I had my family round me—mother, sisters, husband, friends—antenatal classes and the knowledge that there would be ample post-natal care and support; but in covid-19 that is simply not possible. The impact is the exacerbation of a problem that already, in the best of circumstances, will affect one in five women who give birth. Those women—it could be any of us—will experience anything from anxiety to obsessive compulsive disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder. I am sure that each one of us in the debate has personal experience of a close friend or relative who has experienced those problems after giving birth—perhaps we have even experienced them ourselves.
We have come a long way as a society from the time when post-natal depression was described almost dismissively as the baby blues, and talked of in hushed tones. We now acknowledge the scale and widespread nature of what many women have to cope with. We have heard many stories in the debate. However, I do not believe that we are adequately responsive, or that we provide correct and sufficient care. In the pandemic, we know that as with many other issues things are much worse. Women going into labour at the moment have not had the benefit of face-to-face antenatal classes, forming bonds with other expectant mothers for common support. They have not had the assurance that their partners can be there, or that their closest family and friends can visit within a few hours—or take part in baby groups or have post-natal visits. All of that is against the background of lockdown—perhaps a feeling of isolation, financial worries or keeping other children amused, cared for, or home-schooled.
A mother’s poor mental health can affect the future outcomes for the child, as we have heard, and that knowledge must be uppermost in our minds. We have heard stories in the debate of the disruptions to life, and the impact on the mental health of both mother and child. It is clear that we need to listen to all that, and act. Listen to the mothers now and in future, about how they are struggling; listen to those who have struggled in the past. With no support network, and delays for treatment, we need to ensure that there is support from healthcare professionals with sufficient training. We need funding. We need a system that provides robust, integrated physical and mental healthcare for new mothers. Maternal mental health must be a priority for the Government, not only for the future wellbeing of mothers, but for all our children.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for bringing forward what is an important issue, and all the right hon. and hon. Members who have made valuable contributions, setting the scene very well. The matter has been a great concern of mine for many years and I have raised it in the House on several occasions. I have probably spoken alongside my colleague and friend, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), among others who are here, on almost every occasion when it has been brought forward.
Covid has been difficult for my family, with the loss of a much-loved mother-in-law; but we have been blessed in that time with sunshine in the rain, as we have two beautiful new grandchildren, Max and Freya—both born during lockdown. It is important to have that opportunity, as a grandparent, to have grandchildren—and new grandchildren. We are up to five now, so I could have a five-a-side mixed football team of boys and girls—I look forward very much to that.
There was no joyful visit to the hospital. Indeed, the first view was through the living-room window and I have not seen the youngest one at all, even from a distance. It has always been on the wife’s video. Video calls are wonderful, but there cannot be anything sweeter than holding your grandchild. As tough as it is for grandparents, it is even more difficult for parents. That is what we have been trying to say today in the contributions that we are making. No mum or auntie is allowed to come round to help the new mum get sorted and into the routine; there are no mums or toddler groups to reassure her that she is doing a phenomenal job, that everyone struggles and that sometimes mum just needs someone to share that with; there are endless days in the house with a baby that she is too frightened to take out into this uncertain world. The impact on mums and dads has been vast and we will probably not know the full extent of it in the years to come.
My parliamentary aide, Naomi, who is a busy girl because she does all the speech writing for me, had two children in a short time. I remember them well. She told me—and she refers to it as her mummy guilt—that her eldest had little opportunity to enjoy her own time before she became the big sister, almost right away. She also talks about the mummy guilt of working full time. Although her parents are able to mind the children, who are well taken care of, the guilt remains that she is not the one picking them up from school, which is what she wants to do.
While I can look on objectively and see two lovely, well-adjusted girls, she sees only the things that she feels she did not do right and which she thinks she did wrong. I do not believe that is the case, but she feels that. All mums will be able to sympathise with the fact that lockdown babies are not able to see or interact with others—that is important. When my children were growing up—this is true of my grandchildren too, from what I have seen of them so far—I saw their interactions with their wee colleagues at school, and they made friends well; they would often hold hands with them in P1 or P2. That is what children do—they need interaction. They are more likely to be parented by the person who is at home with them. I can only imagine the feelings of isolation and guilt at what the child has missed out on and what would have been felt.
I was pleased to receive correspondence from one of my constituents, who wrote to me expressing the feeling of being robbed of her maternity leave and calling for an extension. I can do nothing but support her in that call. The experience of lockdown for new parents has been difficult; no music classes, no parenting groups, no one to reassure them face to face and see if they are truly okay. In addition, we must consider parents whose children went to a neonatal unit. The baby charity Bliss has conducted a survey of parents whose baby received neonatal care during the pandemic. I am not going to repeat the figures cited by the hon. Gentleman for East Worthing and Shoreham, but I remind everyone, including the Minister, to look at them.
Jim Shannon
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and his early-day motion. In conclusion, I am pleased to stand with parents asking for the help and support that is needed. Give them the support that has been lacking for so long, and let them know that, even when socially distanced, they are not alone.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Thank you very much. We now return to virtual for the SNP spokesperson, Dr Lisa Cameron.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I commend the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on bringing this absolutely vital debate to Parliament. It is crucial and could not be more timely. Before I begin, I refer to my entry in the register as a clinical psychologist, and thank the British Psychological Society and the Maternal Mental Health Alliance for the work that they have done in this field, among the many other charities and organisations already referred to.
I thank everyone who has spoken so thoroughly today on many issues, including the first crucial 1,001 days, and the importance of digital records, which are essential in ensuring continuity of care. I understand that the Government is bringing in support for family hubs in future, so I am interested to hear from the Minister more about that and how it will support this work. Other issues that have been raised go to the core of mental health stigma and the impact of coronavirus on labour and prenatal care.
Members have spoken eloquently about their own personal experiences. It is absolutely crucial to ensure that we normalise wellbeing and mental health issues, particularly during this most crucial time in people’s lives, and also give due cognisance to the importance of ensuring that people can access services when they need to do so.
The first weeks, months and years of parenthood were absolutely some of the most difficult that I have experienced—fraught with sleepless nights, anxiety about the future and overly high expectations that I placed on myself about the responsibilities of being a new mum. Support is absolutely crucial at these times, and that has just not been available during covid-19.
Before the coronavirus pandemic, more than one in five women experienced mental health problems during pregnancy or in the first post-natal year and, as is true of so much of our lives in the past year, covid-19 has exacerbated those issues. The Baby Loss Awareness Alliance, led by the charity Sands, found that isolation increased during lockdown, with feelings of loneliness impacting 63% of new parents—compared with 38% before the pandemic—and those who had experienced extreme difficulties during birth. If symptoms are allowed to spiral, more severe perinatal mental health issues can be significant and can have long-term effects on mother, baby, father and different members of the family.
Research evidence suggests that the long-term cost of perinatal depression, anxiety and psychosis in the UK is £8.1 billion per year, equivalent to roughly £10,000 for every single birth in the UK each year. While the financial weight of the failure to help new and expectant families is stark, the reality of families having to cope with perinatal mental illness is also heartbreaking, with maternal suicide one of the leading causes of death for women during pregnancy and in the first year after birth.
In summing up, I want to highlight two areas to the Government where I think the situation can be improved. First, pharmacological interventions really have to be matched with high-quality specialist psychological therapies during the perinatal period. Significant steps have been taken towards integrated care across the UK and in the devolved Governments in the past few years, but much more needs to be done to ensure that maternal mental health needs are met in whatever context they first present. That might be in maternity services, adult mental health services, drug and alcohol services, learning disability services or child and adolescent mental health services that are supporting the whole family. Wherever families show signs of needing help, they must be able to access specialist psychological therapies as quickly and easily as possible if we are to ensure the best possible outcome.
That must also apply to specialist perinatal community teams. In many circumstances, these home visit teams are the first and sometimes the last opportunity to spot maternal mental health issues, and they must include individuals with specialist training in clinical psychology. The British Psychological Society has recommended that every specialist perinatal mental health team should include clinical psychology and that every woman identified as requiring a psychological intervention should be offered an assessment and treatment with a clinical psychologist within 28 days. I highlight that recommendation.
In 2020, the Scottish Government invested £1.4 million in specialist community perinatal mental health services, with an additional £1.5 million for infant mental health and maternal and neonatal psychological services across Scotland. I urge the UK Government to set out additional support to what has already been promised in the NHS long-term plan, in the light of the additional and compound need that we have heard about in the debate today, which has set out the impact of covid-19. The need has been exacerbated, and it is crucial that we do not fail families at this time.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and it is an honour to respond on behalf of the Opposition in this vital and incredibly moving debate. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing the debate. All contributions have been incredibly valuable and have highlighted the urgency of focusing attention on maternal health. Debates such as these can go some way towards breaking down the stigma that still persists around mental health and the often harsh reality of pregnancy, birth and motherhood. It is simply heartbreaking that suicide is the leading cause of maternal death. More people are starting to speak up publicly about their experiences, but we need action from the Government.
The coronavirus crisis has had a disastrous impact on many women. I was honoured to listen to colleagues sharing their heartbreaking experiences of baby loss in a recent debate. My heart breaks for all the women who have had to go through that alone at any time, especially during the pandemic. It is simply inhumane. Will the Minister outline what mental health support will be offered to women who have experienced baby loss without their partner by their side? Such tragedies have a long-term impact on partners and families, too. Will any support be extended to families? We heard described today, very eloquently, the importance of also considering fathers and other partners in such circumstances.
Within maternity services, there are huge inequalities. Black women are four times more likely than white women to die in pregnancy or childbirth. Pakistani women are more likely to have a premature baby or a neonatal death in the UK compared with their country of origin. Women from all ethnic minority groups in the UK receive fewer home visits from midwives and are more likely to give birth by emergency caesarean sections. What are the Government doing to address those discrepancies and to ensure that culturally appropriate mental health support is provided? Such racial inequalities are deep rooted and are further entrenched by covid-19. People from ethnic minority backgrounds are more likely to be adversely impacted financially by the pandemic, and the risk of death is much greater.
The Government’s only response so far to those shocking statistics has been to commission further research, but we need action now. The evidence is already clear that there are persistent inequalities in maternity outcomes and experiences, and that discrimination bias and a lack of cultural understanding are driving that. What action are the Government taking to eradicate these gross examples of health inequality? The five-year forward view for mental health made a recommendation that by 2020-21 in England 30,000 more women each year should be able to access evidence-based specialist mental health care during the perinatal period. During Monday’s statement on women’s health, I asked the Minister if she could tell us whether that target had been met. We did not get an answer, so will she provide one today?
Furthermore, the NHS long-term plan outlined that an additional 24,000 women per year with moderate to severe perinatal mental health difficulties and a personality disorder diagnosis would benefit from evidence-based care by 2023-24. Will the Minister please outline how many women are now benefiting from that? We also know that Health Education England was provided with £1.2 million of funding to increase skills and awareness around perinatal mental health. Will the Minister outline the progress on that and tell us where training initiatives might have been hampered by the pandemic?
The pandemic has had a profound effect on people’s mental health. We know how difficult and stressful pregnancy and birth can be at the best of times. Even outside of covid-19 it is vital that perinatal mental health services should promote prevention, early detection and diagnosis of mental health problems. Many women have been struggling to access the services they need during pregnancy, leaving them having to go through A&E. That is hugely distressing and can cause a great deal of anxiety for expectant mothers and their partners. It is therefore vital that those most at risk get the support they need now. Will the Minister outline what delays there have been during the pandemic in accessing perinatal services?
Working in a hospital, I have seen the fear that so many people present with: fear of contracting the virus, fear of taking the virus home and fear of wasting NHS time. Preventive measures around mental illness are crucial, especially now, for those most at risk. With more than half of new mothers having reported feeling down, lonely or irritable, and 71% reporting feeling worried since the beginning of the first lockdown, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that new mothers know where to go to seek help?
A University College London report found that, during the pandemic, there was a redeployment of up to 80% of health visitors in some areas. That prevents the much-needed visits that we heard about earlier. Face-to-face visits are crucial in recognising issues early and in providing assistance. Will the Minister tell me what delays families have faced at this time and whether any additional resources will be offered to those who missed out on face-to-face visits?
As a mother of two under two at one point, I know how desperately stressful it can feel to have one baby already and have a new one arrive. I know what it is like to feel as though you are failing at motherhood and at being a working mother. I know just how challenging it can be, but I cannot imagine for a moment what it would have felt like to do that through the pandemic. We rely so much on being in playgroups, having other mothers and fathers telling us we are doing okay, and phoning the breastfeeding helpline at 2 am worried that you cannot make enough milk for your baby and having someone say, “Don’t worry. We can get a health visitor to come and see you tomorrow.” These are normal things, but for so many mothers they have been lacking throughout the pandemic. I fear for the effect that that will have on them, their families and their children in the long term.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) asked last year about the additional counselling and support being provided for those who gave birth during lockdown. I noted that there was no clear answer on the proactive work that the Government have done to provide support to new parents. I ask the Minister whether that was because no additional resources have been provided. Does she recognise that maternal mental health has been overlooked in this crisis?
Pregnancy and childbirth can be such a beautiful time in people’s lives, but I know what it can feel like when it goes wrong. I know the fear of stepping into a hospital afterwards—the memories come flooding back. Your heart rate goes up, and you cannot even imagine what it would be like to be pregnant and to go through childbirth again. These things can be overcome, but not without the specialist help that people really rely on. I cannot imagine what it must be like for women going through this during covid, and yet it is another barrier in the way of getting the help that they and their families desperately need.
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for bringing forward this important debate. We have had a number of debates about maternal health over the past year, but this is particularly important, given the timing.
Pregnancy and motherhood are a period of great change for everyone. It has been particularly difficult for new mothers during the past year, while they have been in the middle of lockdown. I want to pick up a couple of points that the hon. Lady made. She cited a case study, which I cannot respond to because it is from Scotland, and, as she knows, health is a devolved matter. She asked about the number of midwives that we have, and that was mentioned by a number of Members. There has been an increase of 14.6% in full-time equivalent midwives in trusts and clinical commissioning groups over the past 10 years.
Let me answer a few quick questions that came up. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) brought up workplaces. We need a call for evidence to gather the data that we need about what is happening to women in the workplace, both when they are pregnant and to do with their health. On Monday, I mentioned issues such as endometriosis, menopause and the musculoskeletal issues that women suffer from more than men. We need data about all that, which is why we made the call for evidence, and I do so again. It is very easy to click on the link and for women to let us know what is happening to them in terms of their health, both in the workplace and in healthcare settings. The number of respondents was in the thousands within a few hours of it going live, and we hope that it will give us the data we need to develop policies for the workplace.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), whom I spoke to last week. We await with great excitement the early years review. It started at the first 1,001 days. This has been my right hon. Friend’s life’s work. I have known her since she first came here as an MP and before, and this is something that she is absolutely passionate about and committed to. The cross-party review will be illuminating, and we are excited to see it launched, which I think will be later this year.
Although the perinatal period can be a time of celebration and joy, for some it can be a time of considerable anxiety and worry. Indeed, like the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), when I became a mother for the first time I was actually alone, because when my baby was 14 days old my husband had to go and work abroad for six months. So I was completely alone, and I absolutely remember waking up in the middle of the night, having nobody with me and being entirely alone trying to breastfeed a baby, totally struggling and not being able to do it. So I remember how hard it is.
Actually, I think I am allowed to say that I am about to become a grandmother for the first time, and I really hope that I can be there for my daughter. I hope that we are over this pandemic and out of it by the time that my daughter gives birth, so that I can be there for her, to help her through what will be difficult times, because every new mother feels that difficulty.
I would like every new mother to know that support is there. Increasingly—indeed, at a rate of knots—we are expanding services, and there is no shame in seeking help, including through the pandemic. Specialist and in-patient perinatal mental health services have remained open during lockdown. There have been restrictions, but services have been providing digital and remote support. For those with severe needs or those who are in crisis, perinatal or otherwise, all mental health trusts have set up new 24/7 crisis helplines—I remember the call on 4 April last year when we decided that we would do this, and those helplines rolled out and were open. I have spoken to the chief executive officers of mental health trusts, and one told me yesterday that the volume of people using those 24/7 helplines has been tremendous. They have been set up and they have been used, including by new mothers.
In the 2020 spending review we also announced up to an additional £500 million for mental health services. That was on top of the £2.3 billion a year that we are investing to address waiting times for mental health services and to give more people the support that they need.
We have also taken action to ensure that mothers can continue to have broader support throughout the perinatal period, both from statutory services and from family support. Health visitors, who are ideally placed to support families, and the health visiting service continue to provide an opportunity to identify families who may need support. The health visiting service has remained in contact with families throughout the pandemic and it will continue to do so and to prioritise very young babies and vulnerable families.
Recognising the support that a father or the mother’s partner can bring, we published guidance in September to reintroduce access for partners, visitors and other supporters of pregnant women in English maternity services. We also launched a campaign to ensure that people continue to access services and get support early.
We have continued to deliver on the ambitions for maternity and mental health services that we had before the pandemic, to ensure that mothers get help earlier. From April 2020, we have invested an additional £12 million per year for every mother to be offered a six to eight-week post-natal check by her GP. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham campaigned on this for some considerable time. Through the post-natal health check, every mother can now expect to have the opportunity and the time to discuss any concerns that she may have about her physical or mental health and wellbeing.
We remain committed to making perinatal mental health services a priority through the NHS long-term plan. There is now—this point is very important—a specialist community perinatal mental health service in every area of England, and we are further increasing access to perinatal services, so that at least 66,000 women will be able to access perinatal mental health services in 2023-24.
I went to see one of these perinatal services at the beginning of my time in post, 18 months ago; they had just begun to roll out. I have been to see one of these perinatal mental health teams working, and it was just tremendous. The nurses had only been in place and operating for a matter of weeks, but they had already had something like 120 referrals and mums they had seen. That demonstrated the need for such a service and almost endorsed the reasons why they were there, as well as highlighting the services that they were providing to those young mums.
Importantly, we are extending the length of time for which specialist perinatal mental health community services will be available, so those services, which currently run from preconception to 12 months after birth, will be available from preconception to 24 months after birth. We are also developing and implementing maternal mental health services or maternity outreach clinics, which bring together maternity and reproductive health and psychological therapy for women experiencing mental health difficulties directly arising from or related to the maternity experience.
As the hon. Member for Richmond Park can see, we have put a huge amount of work into maternal mental health. She is quite right. I cannot remember who highlighted the fact—it may have been the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan)—that suicide is still the biggest cause of death in the period from, I think, eight weeks post delivery to 12 months. It is still the biggest cause of maternal death. That is why this issue is so important to us. To reduce the figures and ensure that suicide is not the biggest cause of maternal death, we have to put the services in earlier. We need to ensure that both at an antenatal stage and at the time of the check with a qualified GP at six to eight weeks, those perinatal mental health services, which are now available in every area of the country, are in place. We have done that through the funding that there has been from the £2.3 billion that has been allocated to the long-term plan.
Many mothers who experience mental health problems in the perinatal period are treated in the community, but a very small number will need hospital admission for their mental health, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park will know. It is right that, where possible, we keep mother and child together. That is why—this is also an announcement; a fact that I am proud of—NHS England has expanded the capacity of mother and baby units in England, with additional four to eight-bed units now providing specialist care and support to mothers who are experiencing severe mental health problems during and after pregnancy. I checked just before I came into the room for this debate, and we are now up to 152 beds across England, which represents a tremendous increase in the number of those units. It is so important in those first days to keep mother and baby together as much as possible.
The units support women with serious mental health issues by keeping them together with their babies and with specialist staff who nurture and support the mother-infant relationship on the ward at the same time as the mother is treated for her mental illness. That is a huge step forward from how things used to be not so long ago. Mothers who are at that severe stage of mental illness post delivery can have that treatment in those beds; they can be treated by those specialists. Mother and baby are together, and there are psychiatric services at the same time. That is a huge leap forward.
We recognise that maternal ill health can also have an effect on the child’s father or the partner of the mother. We are therefore also offering partners of women accessing specialist perinatal mental health services and maternal mental health services evidence-based assessments for their mental health and signposting to support as required. In the future, partners of expectant and new mothers who are seriously unwell will be offered a range of help, such as peer support, behavioural couples therapy sessions and other family and parenting interventions.
We are also taking forward work to ensure that all babies and young children in England receive the best start in life. I will come on to the early years review. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Prime Minister jointly commissioned in the summer of 2020 the early years healthy development review. It is important, so I will say this again. The review looks across the first 1,001 critical days. The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), also spoke about the importance of the first 1,001 days, from conception to the age of two. This is about ensuring that babies and young children in England can be given the best start in life. Phase 1 of the review is in its final stages, and the vision for brilliance, setting out policy actions for the Government, will be published shortly.
I hope that my response goes some way to assuring all hon. Members that this Government remain committed to supporting mothers throughout the perinatal stages and up to 24 months after giving birth and ensuring that we can reach out to mothers who may need help coming forward about their mental health.
I would like to end by talking about women’s health more broadly. Pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood are just some of the stages of life that many women can experience. Throughout the course of our lives, the physical milestones, the changes to our bodies and our experience of the world have an impact on our health. I reiterate that we are having our International Women’s Day debate tomorrow, and I hope that the call for evidence will be mentioned, so that we can better understand women’s experiences of the health and care system but also, as I said at the beginning, their experiences of health, including motherhood and maternity, in the workplace. Without that evidence from women, we do not have the data and the information that is necessary in order to adapt and develop policies moving forward.
I will finish by urging all women to share their experiences through the call for evidence. It will form the basis of a new women’s health strategy—the first of its kind. This is the first time any Government have called on women for evidence, so that we can set an ambitious and positive new agenda to improve health and wellbeing and to ensure that health services are meeting the needs of women everywhere, especially in perinatal mental health.
Sarah Olney
This has been a really fantastic debate, and I am so grateful for the contributions from Members, both in the room and on Zoom. I welcome the contribution from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and all the work that he has done, particularly as the chair of the APPG for the first 1,001 days. He has highlighted the work of the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), and I am very much looking forward to reading her review, which will be really interesting. He also highlighted the importance of fathers, and I am really grateful to him for raising that important aspect of the debate.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for mentioning grandparents. Some of the most distressing correspondence I have had during this pandemic has been from grandparents who have been unable to see and hold their new grandchildren, so I thank him for raising that issue. I congratulate the Minister on her impending grandmotherhood and hope that all goes well.
I am particularly grateful to Members who have shared their own experiences throughout the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), whose experience highlights what I was saying about the inadequacy of telephone and digital follow-up appointments. She spoke of her experience of post-natal depression, and I am really grateful to her for sharing that. If I could stretch out a virtual hand, I would like to say to her that we share the experience of baby loss, and I know what that is like.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for highlighting another really important aspect: babies who are born with additional needs, the particular needs of their families and how they have been affected during this pandemic. I really hope that their needs can be prioritised going forward. I also want to mention the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). It feels as if a mother’s financial experience is almost an additional thing, but she is absolutely right in saying it is central to mothers’ mental health to know that they have economic stability. I thank her for raising that.
I want to pick up on the Minister’s comments. I am really pleased to hear about the call for evidence. As I say, I am looking forward to the early years review. I want to push her on the point about not allowing digital and telephone consultations to become the norm in perinatal mental health, because those face-to-face visits are so important to mothers everywhere, and I really hope that can be embedded. I thank everyone for their time this afternoon, and thank you, Sir Edward, for your chairing.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Speaking as a grandfather, it has been a very interesting debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered maternal mental health.
Noise Pollution and Military Aviation
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered noise pollution and military aviation.
Thank you, Sir Edward, for the opportunity to raise a matter of long standing in north and west Wales but which is particularly difficult at present. There is a long history of training pilots locally at RAF Valley, and I want to say right at the start that this is not about pilot training as such. Some of my constituents argue that the purpose of that training is unacceptable, but, given the narrow scope of the debate, that is something for another day. The debate is about the current level of noise and the future prospects for peace and quiet for my constituents and others across our extraordinary natural environments in north and west Wales, as well as for the future of our outdoor tourism industry, which so depends on the tranquillity of the national park and the areas beyond. I note the huge pressure on the outdoors industry with this lockdown. The last thing we need is for outdoor centres to reopen but find a drop in their historical level of business because visitors are put off by aircraft noise.
I thank the senior officer at RAF Valley for meeting me at Westminster some time ago to discuss the matter. I also thank the Minister and his staff for answering my many written questions over the last few months. However, I assure him that my pen is poised should the debate not elicit full and satisfactory answers.
It is well over a year since I raised this matter with the Ministry of Defence and senior personnel at RAF Valley, but constituents continue to report frequent and unacceptable noise levels from the Texan T1 despite assurances that steps were being taken to equip the aircraft with what was necessary to allow them to fly over the sea, which would reduce the impact on populated areas.
I will proceed with my understanding of the genesis of the issue—of course, I stand to be corrected if I have got something wrong. The Texan, as I understand it, is a sophisticated new training aeroplane able to mimic the characteristics of a range of other aircraft in service and is therefore very valuable to the RAF in training. The Texans are now based at RAF Valley on Ynys Môn. “Ynys” in English is “island”, a point to which I will turn immediately. For safety reasons, the new aircraft cannot be flown over the sea without special precautions. Of course, Ynys Môn is surrounded by the sea on three sides. I have been told many times that the necessary safety equipment—a particular harness, a lifejacket and a life raft—is being developed, that the restrictions are temporary and, of course, that this is a priority for the MOD. I quite understand that, given how it now has these new and very useful aircraft available. However, in the meantime, the Texan is being flown over a restricted area of north and west Wales—restricted because of other flying activity. I understand it is also being flown over the Isle of Man and the English Lake district. Both of those places are, of course, over the sea from Ynys Môn and, as I said, precautions have to be taken before flights over the sea.
In a letter of 7 December, the Minister wanted to stress that although my constituents might perceive that the restrictions on Texan flights result in a disproportionate concentration of overflight in their areas, that was not the case. He then referred to flights over the Isle of Man and the Lake district. These are my first questions to the Minister. What proportion of Texan flights take place respectively over the three areas? Is that proportion as planned, even if the number of flights are greater? That is, of course, if they are greater; I am not sure. I contacted a colleague from the Lake district and asked about flights over his area. He said he was unaware of any flights by the Texans.
I understand that the Texan is noisier in some respects than the jet aircraft that usually overfly our area, even those that have flown over what is notoriously called the Mach loop near Machynlleth, which generates a large number of complaints. The reason the Texan is noisier, as I understand it, is that it is a turboprop plane.
My next three questions to the Minister are these. First, is there some further way of lessening the noise in the short term, for example by varying the height at which the aircraft are flown? I was told by RAF personnel, and I think by the station commander at RAF Valley, that they fly at around 5,000 feet, which means the noise generated is distributed very widely. Has that been considered? I am sure it has.
Secondly, what are the possibilities of halting, varying or even reducing the manoeuvres performed in training, noticeably what I believe is the dive and climb? That manoeuvre produces the characteristic, rather chilling howl that the aircraft make. There might be a fairly loud background hum a lot of the time, but that is interspersed with this howl, which disturbs many people.
Thirdly, and importantly, whatever changes are made to the operation of the Texan aircraft, can the Minister assure me that any such changed procedures would not lead to a reduction in work for ground staff at the Valley? The Valley is a significant and valued local employer, whatever one might think about the activities there. As I said, my constituents’ views of the training at the Valley are mixed, to say the least.
As I said earlier, the Minister has assured me that the safety work is being undertaken. I know nothing of the technical aspects of that safety work and I am sure the work is extremely complex. Of course, I would not want the safety of our air personnel to be compromised in any way by a rushed job, but it does seem to my constituents to be taking a very long time. I picked up this issue about a year ago and have been given repeated assurances that the work is being done and that it is a temporary measure. What progress has been achieved so far? Can the Minister give me an idea of an end date?
I now come to a broader set of questions that have sometimes got lost in concentrating on the noise problem. First, what was the process of approval for the purchase of this aircraft? They seem to have been bought and then later had their use restricted because of safety concerns. It seems strange that new aircraft were bought but were then deemed not to be suitable for use where they are located.
Why was the safety problem not foreseen before the aircraft were acquired? I hope that the safety problem was not foreseen but disregarded. Would the Minister throw some light on that matter? Were those who assessed the safety of the operation over the sea not part of the process? My understanding is that there was a sequence whereby the aircraft were acquired and then the people responsible for safety stepped in and said they cannot fly over the sea. Now, perhaps I am wrong in my understanding, but I would be grateful if the Minister could explain.
I come next to a question that I have already referred to: the aircraft were located at the Valley on Ynys Môn, surrounded on three sides by the sea—it is an island, after all. I know that locating them at Valley is very useful for the RAF. Certainly, for my constituents in Arfon, and more so for people in Ynys Môn, Valley is a vital economic interest, not least because the prospects for large-scale employment locally, such as Wylfa B, have subsequently disappeared. Some explanation of the decision to locate them at Valley would be helpful, if that is possible. I can appreciate that there might be some security or confidentiality considerations.
I come on to the cost of change and modification. Has that been budgeted for? Was that budgeted for in the initial costings of the Texan? Or is that an additional cost? If it is an additional cost, who is paying it?
The Minister might be relieved that I am coming to the end of this long series of questions, but I have a few more, which are about assessments before the new machines were purchased. I think the arrival of the Texans was something of a surprise for my constituents and for the local population throughout north and west Wales—I understand they are flown over the Ceredigion constituency as well. What assessment was made at the start of the acquisition process of the health and wellbeing effects on local populations that would be overflown? I cannot say that I recall being informed or contacted or asked my opinion about this as a local MP. Is there a standard procedure or does the RAF and the MOD act off their own bat? Given that this area is a national park, what assessment was made of the possible effects on wildlife?
There is also the economic impact on tourism in general, but particularly the effect on outdoor tourism. This is an area that depends on tourism. People come here because of the peace and quiet. That is particularly so for outdoor tourism. The area sells itself, very successfully, on the basis of peace and quiet, on the extraordinary natural environment and the beauty of the area, of course, and in some ways on the remoteness of the area, although of course we are not remote from the large conurbations of north-west England. The remoteness is disturbed by aircraft flying over—there is a paradox there. There is a question around whether that was assessed at all. I do not know what the procedure is in the MOD or in general, but if such assessments were made, were they public documents, so that people in north and west Wales could see for themselves that proper care was being taken of their interests?
When and if these aircraft are modified so that they can fly over the sea, should we assume that they will continue to be flown over the land? I take it that they will be, from the letter I received from the Minister, dated 7 December. If so, can he indicate the proportion of overland and oversea flights, or even their number? Are we going to have more or fewer of them? Will many be over the sea, or just a few? Will there be changed safety procedures for oversea flights? Will that lead to increased flights over other areas, such as the Isle of Man and the English Lake district? In other words, will the distribution be different?
In the very last of my long list of questions, I understand that there is an intention to bring in night flying. I have not heard those aircraft at night myself—it is possible that they have not flown over my part of the constituency —but I would like to know the MOD’s intention in respect of night flights. I understand that, at present, the intention is that 5% of all flights will be at night. I worry that those flights might be more intrusive, just because of the absence of other noise at night. Again, any information that the Minister can give to me or my constituents would be greatly appreciated.
I realise that I have posed many questions. I accept, of course, that the Minister might only be able to respond to some of them at this point, but I would hope for oral or written answers to them all. The people whom I and my right hon. and hon. Friends represent deserve no less.
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) on securing this debate. It is a pleasure to see him, albeit virtually. He is a constant advocate on this point for his constituents.
The hon. Gentleman was not wrong in saying that his speech contained many questions. He has already put many to me, to which I have responded with written answers, as he generously made clear. I have written to him in some detail on a couple of occasions, and will do so again. Try as I might to cover as many of his questions as possible, I may need to come back to him on some of the points of detail that he referenced. This is an important debate and I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to it.
For more than a century, the Royal Air Force has defended the skies above the United Kingdom and projected Britain’s power and influence around the world. Today, the RAF remains at the heart of the Government’s approach to conflict and crisis management and remains heavily committed to operations at home and abroad. Of course, our aviation branch is not just the RAF; our Royal Navy and Army aviators play a vital role, too, in ensuring our security at home and around the globe.
The fact is that our aircraft may be required to scramble at a moment’s notice to defend our airspace, in defence of our allies or to participate in operations, as they have done so often over the past 20 years. That is what makes the importance of their training so acute. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman absolutely said that in his remarks and that he does not wish to compromise safety. I know that he appreciates the importance of that.
Since 2012, we tragically have lost seven aircrew in accidents, at home and overseas. Our thoughts remain with the families, friends and colleagues of all those who have died in service. Sadly, we will never prevent all deaths, but our duty is to ensure that our pilots are as well trained as possible, to reduce such fatalities. The ability to train effectively in the benign and friendly environment of the homeland they protect keeps them safe for the dangers they confront on operations.
Flying skills, in particular for low-level flying, are highly perishable and the risk of skill fade cannot be underestimated. Those skills can be achieved and maintained only through practice in a range of environments. I understand what the hon. Gentleman would say, and I was going to make a bad pun involving “Hywel” and the howling that can be a factor of those aircraft. I do not know the straightforward answer to his questions, but I know he will appreciate that we need to be able to have that tactical manoeuvring agility, to test the pilots and to make certain that they are competent in all areas of manoeuvrability. However, I will take up his question with the RAF.
The planes are new, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and they were cleared as perfectly safe by American and European regulators. When those planes come into service, we want to ensure that they are absolutely right for our requirements of them, because we place such a high premium on the safety and security of our crews. Particular problems were identified, for which we wished to enhance security, and I will come on to those later in my speech.
The point that I want to make is that, in terms of decibel levels, this plane is quieter than the plane that preceded it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in the beautiful part of the country that he represents have noted that there is a low hum, which can perhaps be heard over a longer distance, even though the decibel level may be lower. I recognise that problem.
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman’s other points. Even with vital live training, we take measures to ensure that disturbance is as limited as is practicable. The amount of low-flying training carried out, to which he referred, is strictly limited to that which is essential to achieve and maintain operational effectiveness. Military aircraft are subject to stringent restrictions on heights and speeds, and their operating procedures are designed to minimise disturbance. We ensure that most low-flying training takes place during daylight hours on weekdays, and wherever possible flying units will publish details of upcoming activity online, in local newspapers and on social media platforms. I should add that we sometimes have to do things differently, owing to the vagaries of the British weather, with which we are all familiar, but that is our intent.
I am saddened by the fact that there was a significant increase—by about 50%—in complaints about low flying in 2020 compared with 2019. The only small silver lining I take from that is that it is perhaps indicative of the amount of flying done on weekdays and during working hours, and that, given the amount of home working over the course of the past year, it is only now that this has become more apparent to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and others. It is indicative of our attempts to schedule flying in such a way as cause minimum inconvenience, avoiding evenings, night-time and weekends where possible. However, we need to train at night, as the hon Gentleman referred to. I believe he is right in saying that 95% to 5% is the approximate differentiation between the two; if that is not the case, I will write to him to correct myself. It is critical, as he will accept, that we have proper training in night-flying skills. Where we do that, we try to ensure that night training is completed as early in the evening as possible, to minimise noise and inconvenience at night.
The hon. Gentleman is clearly particularly focused on training and noise pollution around RAF Valley. He knows, and generously remarked on, the fact that night-flying training has brought with it to Ynys Môn a sizeable part of the £3.5 billion of investment currently set aside for military flying training, and that the base is the second largest employer on the island. However, just as the RAF is important to the area, so the local community is important to us. We always wish to act as good neighbours.
I have three specific points on RAF Valley. First, where possible, we use synthetic training, which has a valuable role to play. It is environmentally positive and clearly eliminates noise pollution entirely. We cannot go wholly synthetic, because we cannot divorce flying training from real cockpits, but we use it where we can. That is a growing trend in our training programmes.
Secondly, while those living in the vicinity of flying units will inevitably see more military aircraft activity than other areas of the country, we make efforts, as the hon. Gentleman knows from my letters, to spread that activity as widely and as equitably as possible. He is right that pilots from RAF Valley also fly elsewhere in Wales, over the Isle of Man and into Cumbria. I do not know the exact proportions, but that is something I can look up. I will see what I can do and come back to the hon. Gentleman. There are occasions when pilots will fly elsewhere, refuel, engage in further operations and then return to RAF Valley. I will look into that. He will appreciate that, even if we have a perfect scenario, in terms of programmes, that will always be affected by weather conditions and the practicalities on the day, but I will see what I can do to give more comfort to the hon. Gentlemen’s constituents about how we look to share the inevitable noise around the country.
Thirdly, I know that the new Texan aircraft and training has been of particular interest to the hon. Gentleman. I responded to his parliamentary questions and, more recently, to a letter about safety equipment. There are three aspects to that safety. The first is to ensure that it can operate safely over water. To be absolutely clear, the Texan can operate over water, and does. As the hon. Gentleman rightly observed, it would not get far away from Ynys Môn if it could not go over water, and it does indeed go over the sea. The issue we have is the kinds of sea states that it can operate over to our satisfaction. We are doing our utmost to protect the crews should an accident occur.
There are three issues. On the life preserver and making certain that a light comes on automatically if it hits the water, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that that has now been sorted. My understanding is that the harness has now been sorted. The remaining issue is to ensure that an automatic life raft deploys in the event of it coming into contact with the water. That has not yet been fixed. Technically, it is difficult. It is a simple bit of kit, but the slot that it has to be placed into is smaller than on most of our other aircraft, so that needs to be addressed. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the timescale for that at the moment, but it is actively being looked into.
What does that prevent? It does not prevent the aircraft from flying over water, but it does mean that we do not fly over water when we have very rough seas—we are talking about the highest level of sea states. The changes we have already made have already significantly increased the amount of flying that has been conducted over water, so the problem has already diminished, and I hope to see it diminish further over time. I stress to the hon. Gentleman that there will always be a certain proportion of training that has to be conducted over land, for obvious reasons to do with the efficacy of the training programme. In any event, the areas immediately to the north of the base, over the Irish sea, contain some of the biggest civil airways, with stringent civil air traffic control procedures that limit our ability to fly in that environment.
We are doing what we can to address the safety concerns about flying over water, and progress has been made. We try to spread the flights further beyond that beautiful part of north Wales that the hon. Gentleman represents, and I will write to him further on that. I recognise that some people find the sound of military aircraft disturbing, and we are always keen to hear from the public about their concerns. That is why we have the MOD’s low flying complaints and enquiries unit, which is the first port of call for members of the public who wish to complain about low-flying military aircraft. Every complaint and enquiry is examined. Nothing is ignored; we investigate properly. Where members of the public allege that military flying regulations have not been followed, a full military police investigation will be conducted into the incident by the defence flying complaints investigation team. Disregard of military flying regulations is not tolerated, and the punishment for those found to have done so is severe.
The hon. Gentleman also asked some questions about the process of acquisition. It is very hard to draw widespread conclusions, but if anything, the decibels emitted from aircraft are falling over time. I think I am right in saying that the old VC10 would, amazingly, have to be 34 miles away from the listener before the noise would finally go. For the Voyager, which replaced it, it is 3.4 miles. That is one example. I hope that, by and large, military aircraft are getting quieter over time, but there are swings and roundabouts in that. As I say, in decibel terms, the Texan is quieter than the aircraft it replaced. I do not know whether there are technical means to quieten the engines beyond what has been proposed. I doubt it, but it is a fair question from the hon. Gentleman. It is a fair challenge, and I will certainly ask that question.
The Texan went through a normal acquisition process, as would be expected in the Ministry of Defence, going through the assets that we need to train our pilots to replace a 30-year-old aircraft and to ensure that it provides value for money. That would all have been undertaken. In parallel with that, we look at the more exacting requirements that we need to place on our aircraft, and again that would have been undertaken on this aircraft, hence the requirement for additional safety measures.
I have probably not heard the last from the hon. Gentleman on this subject. I look forward to further engagements. On the points that he raised that I have not been able to reply to in this debate, I will endeavour to write to him with answers. I recognise the sincerity of his concern on this issue. I trust that he and his constituents recognise the value that is placed on having incredibly good, highly trained, highly experienced pilots, who do the work they do in support of our country and to keep us safe. I thank him for the debate, and I look forward to writing to him and hearing from him again in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Household Overcrowding: Covid-19
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered household overcrowding and the covid-19 outbreak.
Eleven years ago, I was contacted by a family who were very overcrowded. The father, mother, and four daughters aged from one to 10 were living in a one-bedroom council flat. In the four years that they had been applying to move, Newham Council had been unable to provide anything larger. Nine years after that, in 2019, I received a letter from the youngest of the four children, who was by then aged 11 and had a younger sister. There were now five daughters, all still living in the same one-bedroom flat. The letter from the 11-year-old said:
“Since I was born, I have not even had a good day, because all this flat does is bring back bad memories. I sleep on the floor with my two older sisters. Every night when my dad gets up to go to work, he always has to turn on the light so he doesn’t step on us. Due to this, I don’t get enough sleep. I can’t concentrate. I’m so scared, because I want to pass my SATs, but I’ve got no place to revise. I’m falling behind in class, and it is because nobody cares about me. Nobody wants to see me happy. I feel like you don’t care, because if you did, you’d help me. All of my friends invite me to birthday parties. However, I am unable to come, because I feel that if I come, they should be invited to my birthday, but I can’t, because I have no place in my house. I have never got to celebrate anything. Every day, I see my mum cry and it makes me cry.”
The family is still in that flat today. With 27,000 people on Newham Council’s housing waiting list, it is not unusual for families to wait 15 years to be housed, as that one has.
Until the 1990s, the average number of people per household in London had fallen steadily since the end of the 19th century. Now, the number is going up. Nationally, the English housing survey showed overcrowding at the highest rate ever in the social rented sector—it was 9% in 2019-20, just before the pandemic. In both the social and private sectors, the rate has roughly doubled in 20 years. I am sorry to report that in my constituency, the overall rate of overcrowding is the highest in the country, at 27%, according to the 2011 census. It will be a good deal higher than that when the data comes in from the census that is under way at the moment.
Some 34% of all Bangladeshi households are overcrowded. The figure for Pakistani households is 18%, black African 16%, Arab 15% and mixed white and black African 14%. All face high levels of overcrowding, compared with 2% for white British households. Dr Haque, who was the then interim director of the Runnymede Trust, told the Women and Equalities Committee last summer that
“there will always be multigenerational homes where people decide to live with multiple generations—maybe their mothers as well as their grandparents—but they do not ever choose to live in overcrowded housing.”
Recognising those different impacts, the Women and Equalities Committee recommended that, by the end of this summer, the Government produce a strategy to reduce overcrowding. If the Government are serious about addressing racial inequalities in public health, they must tackle overcrowding. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us whether the strategy that the Committee has called for will be produced by the end of this summer.
We know from studies such as the Marmot review that housing is a social determinant of health. Poor housing can lead to lifelong poor physical and mental health. There is a higher risk of accidents in overcrowded homes, and there is more condensation and mould. Research has established a link between overcrowding and poor child health due to infections and respiratory and gastrointestinal problems. There is consistent evidence of poorer mental health for people in crowded homes—depression, anxiety and stress as a result of living in cramped conditions. Poor quality of sleep is one of the reasons for that. Lack of space to play or study holds back children’s development and education.
Overcrowding is associated with interrupted schooling and behavioural problems at school. It can harm family relationships and lead to fighting and arguments between children. All of that was true before the pandemic, but covid has shone a bright light on all of these problems, and overcrowding has made coping with covid much harder. Transmission within households has spread the virus. In overcrowded households, infection has spread faster. Social distancing and self-isolation can be impossible. The stress of overcrowding—long-term and familiar—has been transformed by the pandemic into a catastrophe.
Last May, Inside Housing magazine published a graph plotting local authorities’ rates of overcrowding against their covid death rates. The correlation is remarkable. Overcrowding might well partly explain the disproportionate mortality rate among ethnic minority groups. Public Health England’s review into why black and ethnic minority groups have been so badly hit by the pandemic identified poor housing and household composition as key factors.
Severe damp and mould, much more common in overcrowded homes, cause chronic respiratory problems, making people more vulnerable if they contract coronavirus. For children, the onset and worsening of asthma in overcrowded conditions is well documented. For those who have to live, learn and work in one room, the psychological impact of lockdown has been extraordinary. On a video call last month with a family in my constituency —mum, dad and another family with five daughters, this time in a two-bedroom flat—the girls pointed out to me how infeasible it was for them all to study at the same time. That family was clearly teetering on the edge. More people in overcrowded households have reported psychological distress in the lockdown.
Sometimes in Parliament when we talk about the housing crisis, we are referring to young people not being able to buy homes until they are a bit older, and that is a problem. The Government have taken various steps to try to address it by subsidising first-time buyers with starter homes, Help to Buy ISAs and the 95% mortgage announced in the Budget last week, but there was nothing at all to tackle the real housing crisis—people trapped at the bottom end of the rental market with unaffordable rents in overcrowded, poor quality homes. The heart of the problem has been the failure to replenish the social housing stock, so families in social housing are twice as likely to be overcrowded now than they would have been decades ago.
I welcomed the Archbishop of Canterbury’s housing commission report last month, with its ambition and vision. It states:
“A good home is a place…where we feel safe, it enables us to put down roots and belong to a community, it is a place we enjoy living in and which is a delight to come home to.”
That should be what we aim for. The report calls for Government action on a
“coherent, long-term housing strategy, focused on those in greatest need.”
It calls for a long-term housing affordability policy with new housing, greater public subsidy, reinstating capital grants, reducing land prices, a new housing affordability definition in terms of household incomes rather than market rents, and a review of social security to strengthen housing support.
I am old enough—just—to remember the furore in the 1960s over the housing crisis around the television play, “Cathy Come Home”, which was about a family destroyed by inadequate housing. That furore led to the foundation of Shelter and a wave of council house building. We are there again now. Families are being destroyed and lives blighted. The impact during the pandemic in the part of London that I represent was well documented in Anjli Raval’s powerful article, “Inside the ‘Covid Triangle’” in the Financial Times magazine last weekend. We need that moral outrage again and a new wave of investment in council house building. We need an alternative to private renting—a decent home where people can live and plan for their future. We have done it before; we can do it again. Councils are finding creative ways to build, such as the Red Door Ventures initiative in Newham, but we need them on a much bigger scale. The Government need to step up, and after the pandemic we need a new programme to build affordable and secure social homes.
Social security needs to tackle overcrowding. Welfare cuts over the past decade have mostly hit tenants. Freezing local housing allowance means that support is not tied to real rents and families cannot afford homes suitable to their needs. This year, thankfully, local housing allowance has been relinked to the 30th percentile of rents. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions told the Work and Pensions Committee, which I chair, that that change was permanent. She was unfortunately mistaken. The Chancellor has frozen rates again from next month, and the gap will start to widen all over again. The benefit cap also makes it impossible for families in London to afford the housing they need. Many households have had no benefit at all from higher housing support over the past year, because it has been immediately capped.
The Work and Pensions Committee has recommended maintaining the increases in support provided in the pandemic, including keeping local housing allowance at the 30th percentile, and conducting an annual review of rates to keep them appropriate for each area. The Archbishops’ Commission on Housing, Church and Community recommended that it be tied to 50% rather than 30%, and that the Government should urgently review the operation of the local housing allowance.
Having seen the impact of household overcrowding during the pandemic, I want to ask the Minister what prospect there is of a new wave of investment in social house building on the scale that we need—or are we going to have to wait again for a Labour Government, for the overcrowding crisis to be addressed? Will he prioritise building affordable family homes with three bedrooms and more? Why have we started down the road of freezing local housing allowance again, after that policy has done so much damage over the past decade, and what response, if any, do the Government plan to make to the report of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s housing commission?
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). The voice of those in cramped, uninhabitable or overcrowded housing is louder in this place thanks in no small part to his tireless campaigning. The pandemic has impacted us all—every family and house, and everyone in society. However, the impact has not been equal. The stark inequalities of our society have been laid bare by a virus that thrives on that very inequality. Those in the worst health are the most likely to fall ill. Those in the lowest-paid jobs are the most likely to be unable to work from home. Those children furthest behind in school are the most likely to be without the internet connection that is required for remote learning.
Perhaps the starkest examples of what I have been describing are in housing—the constituents who contact me every single day, who are without the outside space that makes lockdown more bearable; the children living on the top floors of tower blocks, who are unable to open windows for ventilation, because of the danger of living on the skyline; the families trapped in temporary accommodation, who do not register with a GP for the vaccination because they have no idea how long they will call that hostel or B&B their home; or, as my right hon. Friend so powerfully explained, overcrowded households, or houses in multiple occupation, where there is a family living in every room.
How can a person possibly self-isolate when they live in one room with four children, like Mrs B in my constituency? The simple answer is that they cannot. Families like hers live across our capital in houses in multiple occupation that have a single bathroom and a household in every room. Sanitation is a pipedream for these families, who share facilities with people in the next room, many of whom disproportionately head out to the frontline each morning. And those in the most insecure work simply cannot afford to self-isolate without the support that the Government seem so reluctant to provide. It is the pandemic paradox—the impossibility of ensuring the safety of those on our frontline when they are the least likely to be able to self-isolate. It is a problem baked in by a decade of austerity, housing crisis and low pay, and the Government’s shambolic treatment of our nurses shows that the lessons are simply not being learned.
I invite the Minister to my Friday advice surgery, where we will hear from Mrs C, who has two bedrooms on the second floor of a property that she shares with her three young children. For the last few months she has been joined by her disabled mother, who unfortunately has cancer and who she wishes to nurse to her end. Her mum is unable to leave the flat and quite frankly—given the impossibility of social distancing in that situation—neither are the rest of her family, if they are to ensure her mother’s safety.
So when the Government huff and puff about isolation payments or celebrate another Budget bereft of social housing policy, I say to the Minister that they simply do not know how the poorest and most vulnerable are living—like Mr F and his twins, who live in one small room in a shared house, or Mr D, who is in a single room with his son, following the sad passing of his wife. Try telling them that the pandemic is the great leveller.
The reality is that coronavirus has shone the strongest spotlight on the importance of having a safe and suitable place to call home. With 1.15 million households on social housing waiting lists across the country, the housing crisis cannot be solved by tinkering around the edges. It needs political will, it needs to be at the heart of Government decision making and it needs a bit more than the 6,556 new social homes that were delivered last year.
Perhaps the £20 billion that has just been announced to look at building a bridge between Scotland and Northern Ireland could be better spent on building the social housing that our country so desperately needs. Maybe then I could finally offer some hope to the families at my advice surgeries that they may one day get a place to call home.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) for setting the scene. Obviously, I will give the Minister a Northern Ireland perspective. I know that he personally does not have ministerial responsibility for Northern Ireland, but I just want to give a Northern Ireland perspective to the debate, and to add my support to the right hon. Gentleman for what he does, and to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) as well.
The hon. Lady mentioned the bridge. I understand what the Prime Minister is talking about, by the way; it is about connectivity and it is about the Union. But yes, I agree with her 100% that the money could be spent on better things. I say that very respectfully. The bridge is not what this debate is about, but if I had been asked to make any comment on it, that is what I would have said. I would have taken the Prime Minister down to the roads in Strangford and told him to spend a whole lot of money on them, to address the issues that I referred to. However, that is not taking away from what the Prime Minister is saying. But the bridge is not the subject of this debate; it is the subject for another debate.
I declare an interest, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on healthy homes and buildings, so I have a particular interest in this issue. One of our interests in the APPG—indeed, it comes up all the time, and I suppose the clue is in the title of our group—is how we can have healthy homes and buildings. It is about homes that are suitable for today’s modern lifestyle, and how we can move towards ensuring that any new homes built are built in a style that would satisfy the needs of a modern family, but it is also about addressing the issue of homes that perhaps are not built in that style. In the past, we have had an inquiry and we have brought out the results, so it is quite an active APPG, I am pleased to say.
May I also say how pleased I am to see the Minister in his place? I was saying to him beforehand—you probably heard me saying it, Sir Edward—that he has shone in the main Chamber and now is his chance to shine in Westminster Hall.
The Minister and I have been good friends ever since he came to this House and I value his friendship; I hope that he values mine. His kindness to us all in this House is beyond doubt. Every Christmas, he is the man who brings the Quality Streets into the Members’ Tea Room; every Easter, I look forward to a creme egg, because of him. So let us put on the record our thanks to him. By the way, I am a diabetic, so I should not eat any of the Quality Streets or any creme eggs, but temptation sometimes gets the better of me.
My own constituency has a huge waiting list. What I will say will replicate what the right hon. Member for East Ham and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden referred to; their constituencies have not cornered the market in housing problems—we have them as well.
Indeed, we have multiple daily problems in our office back home in Newtownards with the waiting list for appropriate social housing, largely made up of people in overcrowded accommodation who cannot afford private rent, or to pay the difference between housing benefit and rent in the real world. They have no alternative whatever but to move themselves and their children into their mum’s spare room—or worse, the living room, which takes away from where everybody lives. We often come to the problem of multiple families living in houses that may have been built for a two-person family but which have maybe six or eight people living in them, which becomes difficult. To have what should naturally be two separate households living together in such circumstances makes covid difficulties clear on so many levels.
The title of the debate is “Household Overcrowding: Covid-19”. We have learned about many things from the coronavirus situation and how we have responded to it, and one is certainly overcrowding, with people living almost on top of each other. I will give an example in a short minute. If just one person in a house gets covid, everybody has to self-isolate, which has implications, including whether an employer will actually furlough them. By the way, I understand that there is some choice in whether the employer may do that.
This is not the Minister’s responsibility, and I am not asking him to answer on it, but one of the biggest issues in my constituency is securing houses big enough for families. A single family may get a four-bed house. They probably have three or four children. One of those children is autistic, and they have maybe one girl and three boys, so right away an ordinary three-bed house will not be sufficient for them because of their physical circumstances and the disabilities of their children.
Sometimes a family has more than one child who is autistic, or they might have one with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as well, which means they need a single bedroom for each one. The right hon. Member for East Ham referred to some issues. Some issues that I face every day in my constituency relate to those who are disabled and how the implications of that then multiply the housing issues.
I was not surprised to learn from the Health Foundation that, going into the covid-19 pandemic, one in three households—32%, or 7.6 million; what a figure—in England had at least one major housing problem relating to overcrowding, affordability or poor-quality housing. Poor-quality housing is one issue that we are trying to address in the APPG. I see that replicated, to scale, in Northern Ireland and in my constituency.
It is clear that housing problems such as these can affect health outcomes—I believe that, and I see it when talking to people—including physical health, directly from poor-quality homes, and mental health, from affordability or insecure housing issues. I understand that the Governments both back home and here are trying to address poor-quality homes, I am pretty sure the Minister will give us some positive answers on the quality of homes and what the Government are doing, and also—I am not putting words in the Minister’s mouth—some idea of what the Government are doing on new building to address demand.
While fewer homes are classed as non-decent compared with 10 years ago, overcrowding and affordability problems have increased in recent years. The pandemic has highlighted the health implications of housing. Poor housing conditions such as overcrowding and high density are associated with a greater spread of covid-19. We have learned that, when one person gets it, we all have to self-isolate. I had to self-isolate from this House because of contact with an hon. Member, and I had to self-isolate a second time because I had contact with somebody on a Sunday, which I notified the House about. So I have had to self-isolate on two occasions.
People have had to spend more time in homes that are overcrowded, damp or unsafe. The economic fall-out of the pandemic may lead to an increase in evictions. The Government have helped a wee bit with that. The implications for people potentially facing evictions from poor-quality homes with rents that are just too expensive, and with their jobs on furlough—or perhaps even lost—are massive. We should all be worried and concerned about that.
These housing problems can be focused on in multiple ways, including the increase of supply to the detriment of other objectives and sustained reductions in housing benefits. There is not a day when we do not do a housing case for someone back home and deal with their housing benefit as well. We deal with other things, but more often than not the housing benefit comes off the back of that.
I could give examples of issues for an entire day, but I will give just one: people in low-income care jobs going to work in a nursing home and coming home to a house with two families because they could no longer afford the £750-a-month rent on their low income. It is the issue of low incomes and very high rents that both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady referred to. People had no other option but to move in with someone else but it meant that two nursing homes were affected by a diagnosis of coronavirus. I know that happened back home. A number of people were working in a nursing home, but when one person came in with coronavirus, everyone in that home had to self-isolate as a result. Coronavirus therefore has effects far beyond people’s living locations. It is definitely a disease that is seeking them out.
I finish with this. Covid has merely put a lens on the problem of affordable housing that has existed for some time. The right hon. Gentleman was right when he said in setting the scene that it was a problem beforehand, and it has been exacerbated by where we are. We need to take steps to address it. Mental health, family relationships and now physical health are at stake.
Mental health comes up in every debate we have because it is real and everyone deals with people affected every day. The hon. Lady asked whether the Minister was available to come down to her surgery and meet some of those people. I am sure the Minister is meeting those people in his surgery, just as we are. I do believe we must act, and I look to the Minister to see his plan of action to provide more social housing, more support for private rental and greater ability for people to be removed from unhealthy living conditions throughout this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
I am pleased to participate in this important debate on household overcrowding and the covid-19 outbreak. I thank the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) for bringing the debate forward. As we have heard, there is no doubt that housing and health outcomes are inextricably linked and that those living in poor housing are more likely to suffer from poor mental and/or physical health.
Covid-19 has indeed thrown into stark relief the existing and ongoing housing challenges that need to be addressed. It seems self-evident that household overcrowding is associated with greater risk of transmission of the virus because self-isolation, as we have heard, becomes much more difficult, as does shielding. That may well have contributed to a higher death rate.
Analysis carried out by Inside Housing shows a clear correlation between overcrowding and covid death rates. In addition, lockdown forces us to spend much more time at home, and doing so is much more challenging for those living in those overcrowded conditions. One study shows that nearly 20% of those in overcrowded conditions during lockdown have experienced mental or physical health problems due to a lack of space.
To return to the overcrowding example given by the right hon. Member for East Ham in his constituency, I know all too well what that is like in normal times: I grew up in a small three-apartment flat with my seven older siblings, my mother and my stepfather as my mother waited an astonishing 28 years for the council to allocate her suitable accommodation. It finally did in 1982, on my 14th birthday.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents do not have to wait quite as long as my family did for suitable accommodation, because I know the damage caused by living one on top of the other with no space and no privacy in such overcrowded conditions. However, even I cannot imagine how people can possibly cope well with such overcrowding during lockdown and how much more challenging lockdown makes such terrible living conditions.
We cannot change the past, but the focus now must be to ensure that more affordable homes are built. In Scotland, the SNP Government have built 97,000 affordable homes since 2007. In the four years to 2020, the SNP Government in Scotland have delivered over 75% more affordable homes per head of population than in both England and Wales. The Scottish Government have recognised the positive social and economic impact that investment in social housing brings, and remain committed to expanding the social housing stock.
In Scotland, the £30 million rural and islands housing funds support the delivery of affordable homes and are to be continued beyond March 2021, with the affordable housing supply programme having already delivered 5,000 affordable homes in rural and island areas in its first four years. There is still more to do.
In its “Building more social housing” report, the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government recommended that
“A social housebuilding programme should be top of the Government’s agenda to rebuild the country from the impact of Covid-19.”
The report went on to say:
“The crisis has exposed our broken housing system. Families in overcrowded homes have faced worse health outcomes.”
In the first instance, the Government need to help those living in overcrowded accommodation. Investing in more social housing is an obvious way to do that. It is also vital to reverse effective cuts in local housing rates and scrap poverty-inducing policies, such as the hated bedroom tax, which the Scottish Government have completely mitigated in Scotland.
The decision to maintain local authority housing rates in cash terms in 2021-22 represents a freeze for private renters and puts at risk all the work done by the Scottish Government to support homeless people, and it potentially makes private sector tenancies unsustainable for some. Indeed, there are examples where the temporary restoration of local housing rates has facilitated moves out of temporary accommodation. The freeze on local housing rates for a Government who want to be taken seriously on tackling homelessness was not considered in last week’s Budget.
Meanwhile, the Scottish Government have an estimated spend on the discretionary housing payment for 2021-22 of £82 million—an important tool used by councils to safeguard tenancies and prevent homelessness—with £71 million of that used to mitigate the bedroom tax for more than 70,000 households in Scotland, to help them sustain their tenancies, with another £11 million spent on mitigating other cruel welfare cuts, such as changes to local housing allowance rates.
Long before the pandemic hit, the policy of no recourse to public funds was pushing working families into abject poverty, forcing them into unsustainable debt and into homelessness, or unsafe, overcrowded and insecure housing. The Children’s Society highlighted last year that families with no recourse to public funds, without access to housing benefit or social housing, find it immensely difficult to shelter their children properly. That matters because covid-19 is no respecter of immigration status and everyone needs help to get through and survive this crisis.
The Scottish Government cannot change those policies because 85% of welfare expenditure and income replacement benefits remain reserved to Westminster. All the Scottish Government can do is try to mitigate the worst impact of those policies, bearing in mind that they are required to present a balanced budget every single year, so that the huge sums of money spent trying to protect Scots from the regressive policies of this Government mean that less money can be spent on other areas. I hope the Minister will reflect on that.
We know that there are real housing challenges across the UK. The Scottish Government have a demonstrable record of trying to tackle them; the UK Government, not so much. Covid has thrown those challenges into stark relief. The Minister knows that the solutions here are not brain surgery. We know what needs to be done to tackle overcrowding, which, there is little doubt, is directly linked to people catching and dying of covid in this pandemic.
I urge the Minister to be more ambitious about plans for building social housing—not just through announcements, but through actual building. The Government also need to abandon the effective freeze on local housing allowance, to facilitate more secure tenancies, and help more people move from temporary to more settled and suitable accommodation, which we have seen can be done.
In addition, the UK Government need to abandon their bedroom tax, which in effect prices people out of their homes. They also need to look afresh at the inhumane policy of no recourse to public funds and at the real damage that that has done and continues to inflict on families. That has not been the case just during the pandemic, but it has certainly shown a clear vision of what that policy means.
We have suffered a global health pandemic, and it is not over, but we can already start to learn the lessons of how we can do better in order to tackle deep-rooted and long-standing housing challenges such as overcrowding and poor living conditions, which have a genuine impact on the mental and physical health of too many people. The word “home” should indeed conjure up images of safety and warmth—a place you want to be. For too many families, poor and overcrowded conditions mean that that is simply not the case. We know what the challenges are and what measures are needed to tackle and mitigate those challenges. I hope that the Minister today will tell us how he and the Government intend to just get on and get down to that important work.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair for this debate, Sir Edward, and to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), the SNP spokesperson. First, I send heartfelt congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on initiating this vital debate. He set out eloquently and in clear and moving terms just what is wrong, why it is so relevant to the impact of covid and what we need to do to solve it. He also gave the truly human consequences by reading out a very upsetting letter from one of his young constituents, who is spending years in overcrowded conditions.
I also welcome the characteristically well informed and passionately expressed speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who is such an inspiring campaigning MP, and the speech from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who does such excellent work with the all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings.
The English housing survey found that 4% of households in England are overcrowded. That is about 829,000 households—just think how many children that comes to. Overcrowding is more common for renters than owner-occupiers: it affects 1% of owner-occupiers, compared with 9% of social renters and 7% of private renting households. Overcrowding is at the highest rate in both the social rented and the private rented sectors since records began.
From my own constituency, I can give numerous examples of the real hardship—the reality—of overcrowded homes. People have been waiting for years and struggling for so long, and this last year has been truly awful. Covid has exposed the consequences when people do not have decent housing. Living in overcrowded homes hampers people’s ability to self-isolate when they have covid-19, but even before this time, overcrowded housing had been associated with respiratory illness in children. Now, it is so much worse.
The National Housing Federation found that 85% of overcrowded families have seen their mental health negatively affected by the overcrowding. Adults in 81% of overcrowded families—four out of five—have seen their personal relationships negatively affected. And it is no surprise, if we try to imagine that.
The former Children’s Commissioner found that poor housing conditions disrupt children’s education, affect health and wellbeing, and leave children with no safe space to play. That compounds the existing inequality between children who are in overcrowded housing with parents struggling to make ends meet and those who have had plenty of space throughout the crisis and good facilities and whose parents have been able to manage well financially. There has been suffering on all sides, but that inequality and the inability to make up that gap have been devastating for so many families.
The Resolution Foundation reported last July on the impact of housing circumstances on people during this crisis and identified how the risk increases for lower-income and ethnic minority families—often, the working poor. I am sure that the Minister will have read that report, but if he has not, I hope he will.
Increased covid risks for black, Asian and other ethnic minority people are compounded by poor housing. As Baroness Lawrence said in her recent review for Labour, not only are black, Asian and minority ethnic people dying at a disproportionate rate; they are also over-exposed to the virus and more likely to suffer the economic consequences, and that is multiplied, as others have said, by poor housing.
The Government response has been inadequate. The Women and Equalities Committee found a lack of clear guidance for those trying to self-isolate in overcrowded accommodation. That has been remedied just today, but the focus has been entirely on the individual rather than any sort of Government support. High rents in insecure housing, with poor living conditions, put millions of people in debt just when their income fell. Local authorities did all they could to support people in challenging living situations throughout the pandemic. The Government promised to do whatever was necessary—whatever it takes. How often did we hear that phrase? They said they would support councils during the pandemic. I am afraid to say that the Prime Minister has not kept to that promise. His council tax hike is an example of that.
We need a vision for our country. We need a vision that is better than what we had when we went into 2020. It is unacceptable that we came into the pandemic with so many people exposed through overcrowded housing. It would be unforgivable if the Government did not learn from this and rebuild better, but the only references to housing in the Budget speech were about a stamp duty holiday and 95% mortgage schemes. These short-sighted interventions do nothing to build the kind of good quality, truly affordable homes that we need to tackle overcrowding, and also to boost jobs and growth. There was no mention of the massive increases in council housing that we need now to deal with overcrowding. There was nothing about dealing with the crisis in the private rented sector, with so many people struggling with drops in income as a result of the crisis, and nothing to create more truly affordable homes. Proposed changes to permitted development will only make it worse. A Government-sponsored review of permitted development found that it leads to a higher risk of overcrowding—a Government-sponsored review.
As we all know, overcrowding causes both physical and mental health problems. That situation has been getting worse rapidly over the last few years and now we are in a health crisis, so there is also a cost to the NHS—a significant cost. As the Government have failed to deal with the gaps in financial support or the impact of a flawed universal credit system, too many families have been forced into arrears this year. The fear of losing their home and increased debt has pushed many into overcrowded conditions.
Decent, affordable, warm, healthy, net zero carbon homes should not be too much to ask for everyone in this country at any time. Covid has shown up starkly not only that that does not happen, but what happens as a consequence when such homes are treated as optional by the Government.
The then Children’s Commissioner wrote to the Secretary of State one year ago:
“The government needs to provide local authorities with the resources to source these homes and combined with a clear expectation that homes need to be sourced quickly. I would like to see this combined with clear messaging to landlords: co-operate or the government will act. It would be a particular disgrace to have closed down apartments – many run by businesses which will be receiving government funds in the next few months – while close by families are homeless. I would urge you to commit that any hotel or property business receiving government support, or wage subsidies, in the next few months will have to commit to housing families at cost. If local authorities are supported by the government with both resourcing and clear messaging I believe we can get these families a decent home to call their own – at least for the next four months.”
Those were the words of Anne Longfield a year ago.
In December, the Woman and Equalities Committee said:
“The guidance that the Government has produced for those in overcrowded housing is substandard. There was no clear guidance in one place from the Government on how to overcome the practical challenges of living in overcrowded, and in some cases multigenerational, accommodation. This continues to be the case nine months after the country first entered lockdown. We recommend that the Government should, within the next four weeks”—
bear in mind, this was in December—
“publish clear, culturally competent guidance with practical recommendations on how to self-isolate for people living in overcrowded, and/or multi-generational, accommodation…We further recommend that the Government by the end of summer 2021 produce a strategy to reduce overcrowding due to its poor health impacts.”
Just today, the Minister has produced guidance on overcrowding and covid. I am not surprised, but I am saddened, to see that the Government’s emphasis is solely on what individuals need to do—individuals forced to live in overcrowded accommodation. That reflects the answers to other parliamentary questions. There is no sign of any Government strategy.
The Confederation of British Industry, the Local Government Association, trade unions, the Church of England, housing and homelessness charities, numerous think-tanks and other specialists all agree that we need massive increases in publicly owned, truly affordable housing. Why do the Government not believe in that? Where was that in the Budget last week? It would boost the economy and give us jobs that we really need—good, secure jobs—as well as dramatically improving living conditions, education and the health of hundreds of thousands of our citizens.
I ask the Minister: why have the Government not taken a public health response to overcrowding in housing? How and when are they going to do so? Does he acknowledge that allowing a large number of people, including children, to live in overcrowded and unhealthy accommodation is detrimental to their health, education and socialisation? Does he agree with the former Children’s Commissioner when she challenged the Secretary of State at the start of the crisis or not? If not, why? If he does, what plans does he have to meet some or all of her recommendations now? It is not too late.
Has the Minister read the briefings from the Resolution Foundation that were published last July? What lessons does he intend to take from them? Has he met the foundation? Has he read the report by the Women and Equalities Committee? Has he discussed it with the Chair? How will he implement the recommendations, and on what timescale? Will he commit to the timescale recommended by the Committee—the end of summer this year—for a clear strategy? Will he consider asking the Office for National Statistics to collect data on overcrowding, because we do not have the data that we really need?
Will the Minister acknowledge that if the Government want to solve that problem, they have to ensure that there is a massive increase in truly affordable and secure council and housing association homes? Will he address directly the young person whom my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham quoted at the start of his speech? Will the Minister explain directly to that young person why the Government have not acted for her so far? My right hon. Friend is correct: now is the time for a moral imperative to ensure that there is decent housing. Everyone should have a decent home. The covid crisis has reinforced that, and the Government must commit to end overcrowding and do it today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Eddie Hughes)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, not least because, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, this is my first debate as Minister. It will possibly be more memorable for me than for you. I thank the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) for securing the debate and other hon. Members for their important contributions to it.
Covid-19 has brought unprecedented changes in how we live and work, with people’s experience of their housing conditions brought into strong focus as never before. Since the start of the pandemic, we have provided unprecedented economic support for households and businesses up and down the country. In the Budget, the Chancellor set out a £65 billion three-point plan to support jobs and businesses as we emerge from the pandemic and forge our recovery. Housing is a key part of that picture, from protecting tenants and landlords to ensuring that our house building sector remains open and active.
For many people, the pandemic has been made tolerable, at least, by a good home and garden shared with the people they care about, but for too many people—examples were movingly set out by the right hon. Member for East Ham—in cramped and substandard accommodation, or unable to walk to shops, green spaces or services, their experience of the pandemic was exacerbated by their housing conditions. Spacious, well-equipped homes that offer green space and access to vital amenities must be the standard if we are to recover from the social as well as the economic effects of covid.
As the right hon. Gentleman outlined, the evidence suggests that housing conditions can play a role in the transmission of the virus and in people’s ability to self-isolate safely, including those living in overcrowded conditions and multi-generational households. We know that black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to live in overcrowded conditions and are disproportionately impacted by the transmission of the virus. The Government are hugely grateful for all the research that has been undertaken—by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, Public Health England and the Women and Equalities Committee—which demonstrates that. The Government are absolutely steadfast in our determination to make the housing system work for everyone, including by tackling overcrowding and supporting vulnerable people to live in safe and decent homes.
Members have rightly spoken today about the prevalence of overcrowding. Between 2019 and 2020, as the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) said, the recorded state of overcrowding across all tenures in England was 4%, and that rate requires action. In many parts of the country, including in the constituency of the right hon. Member for East Ham, the situation is far worse. Newham has the highest level of household overcrowding in England, with 28,000 households on the waiting list in the overcrowding “reasonable preference” category, as of 31 March last year. We know that for some of those people in substandard housing conditions—especially in built-up areas with high deprivation, such as Newham—the pandemic has been particularly difficult.
The Government have responded at pace since the onset of the pandemic to provide a range of guidance to support and advise people who live in poor housing conditions, including overcrowded housing. We have kept our guidance under continual review in response to the latest available evidence, stressing the importance of ventilation and cleaning. We have made information available on people’s rights as tenants, and on how to work with landlords and local authorities to address hazardous issues.
I believe that our measures are the right ones. Where vulnerable tenants are living in overcrowded accommodation, local authorities can use their enforcement powers to require a landlord to remedy a serious overcrowding hazard. For shared houses and flats occupied by people who are not related—homes in multiple occupation—the Government have clarified the minimum room sizes in shared accommodation, making it illegal for landlords to let out a bedroom that is smaller than 6.51 square metres to one person.
HMOs are at increased risk of overcrowding, and the occupiers are likely to be vulnerable. That is why we require that all larger HMOs—those with five or more tenants—must be licensed with their local council. Under the HMO licensing scheme, a local authority can set conditions that landlords must follow to improve the quality of the accommodation, and the local authority has the power to inspect properties without notice and order improvements to conditions and any health hazards, including gas and electrical safety.
We are determined to crack down on the smaller number of unscrupulous landlords who neglect their properties and exploit their tenants. We want such landlords either to improve the service that they offer, or to leave the business. This is why we have strengthened local authority enforcement powers, introducing financial penalties of up to £30,000 and extended rent repayment orders for landlords and agents who break the rules, with banning orders for the most serious and prolific offenders.
Local authorities also have a duty to take enforcement action if they find seriously hazardous conditions. That is why we are overhauling and simplifying the housing health safety rating system, which is the tool used to assess hazardous conditions in rented homes. If a HHSRS assessment identifies a serious hazard, which includes overcrowding, the local council must take enforcement action against the landlord. That includes banning orders for the worst offenders, and it applies to all privately rented properties. We also brought forward legislation on letting homes fit for human habitation, empowering tenants to take their own action against landlords who let unfit properties.
Siobhain McDonagh
Chair, am I allowed to intervene, if the Minister is willing to give way?
Siobhain McDonagh
I am sure that the Minister would not wish to take credit for a piece of legislation that was introduced by our great colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck).
Eddie Hughes
Under no circumstances was I attempting to take credit for that Bill, and I was delighted to be in the House when it became law. I completely endorse it, and I understand the comments of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh).
Stephen Timms
I thank the Minister for the points that he is making. Can he tell us whether the Government will accept the recommendation of the Women and Equalities Committee and bring forward a strategy to tackle overcrowding by the end of the summer?
Eddie Hughes
The Government are already doing things to tackle overcrowding, not least with our substantial investment in new house building. The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of points in his speech, and I will cover some of them. He asked if we expect a new wave of investment in social house building. We need house building of all tenures, and the Government have demonstrated their commitment to increasing the affordable housing supply. We are investing more than £12 billion in affordable housing over five years—the largest investment for a decade. That includes the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme, which will provide up to 180,000 homes across the country; and a further £9 billion for the shared ownership and affordable homes programme, running to 2023, which will deliver 250,000 new affordable homes. The affordable homes programme will deliver more than double the social rent of the current programme, with around 32,000 social rented properties due to be delivered
Jim Shannon
Are the Government committed to co-ownership—to helping those who want co-ownership homes, and supporting the building projects? The co-ownership scheme enables people who have maybe 50% of the value, or a small portion of it, to get a home earlier. Are the Government committed to that?
Eddie Hughes
I will have to come back to the hon. Gentleman on the specific scheme that he is talking about. The Government are certainly aiming to do things to help people. For example, we have 95% mortgages to make sure more people have the opportunity to buy their own home. I will come back to him on the scheme that he mentioned.
The right hon. Member for East Ham asked about prioritising the building of three-bed properties and above. When the national planning policy framework was revised in July 2018, it set an expectation that local planning authorities must put in place planning policies that identify the size, type and tenure of homes required for different groups in the community. We have not changed that, and we would therefore expect it to be a key consideration when planning housing at a local level.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about local housing allowance. During the pandemic, the Government increased the local housing allowance rate to the 30th percentile, which meant that 1.5 million people were able to access that additional payment, which averaged £600 annually.
Siobhain McDonagh
I appreciate that we are unrelentingly miserable in our stories about our constituents’ terrible housing circumstances, but will the Minister join me in thanking Channel 4 and journalist Jackie Long for helping one of my families? Jackie Long visited my constituent, who was going out to be a carer, to see the circumstances in which she was living during the lockdown—in one room with her son. Jackie Long and the viewers were so moved by my constituent’s story that they collected a deposit, and that woman is now in a flat of her own with her son.
Eddie Hughes
That sounds like a particularly moving case. During the pandemic, we have seen society pulling together in incredible ways, and that is a great example.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. You have three minutes left, Minister.
Eddie Hughes
I will move quickly.
We welcome the report from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s housing commission, and we will continue to work with all organisations, such as the Church of England, to develop affordable housing programmes. The Government are reviewing our own land ownership to ensure that it is put to good use.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned people in temporary accommodation who have not registered with their GP for a vaccine. I urge them to do so urgently. We are doing great work to ensure homeless people have access to the vaccine across the country, and I want to ensure that those in temporary accommodation have access. Regarding the invitation to her advice surgery, I have good examples in my own constituency of cases such as the ones she raised.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for his kind comments at the start. I was lucky enough to attend a number of meetings of the all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings, and I value the great work it does.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) mentioned a social house building programme. As I said earlier, I feel that the Government are already committed to a strong investment in building houses of all types and tenures.
The hon. Member for Bristol West mentioned the idea of the Government doing whatever it takes. I feel that councils up and down the country will be incredibly grateful for the investment that this Government have made—we have provided un-ring-fenced money for councils to use at their own discretion. Finally, we have the £50 million social housing decarbonisation fund through the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which will be looking at ways of not just decarbonising social housing, but reducing the cost of fuel and therefore fuel poverty.
Stephen Timms
I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) made a characteristically powerful contribution, as did the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I am grateful to them both, and to the Front Benchers.
The real housing crisis is about people trapped at the bottom end of the rental market, paying unaffordable rents in overcrowded, inadequate homes. As we have been reminded, there was absolutely nothing in the Budget to help. It may well be, as it was in the 1960s, that we have to wait for a Labour Government, and for my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) to become the housing Secretary, for us to get the programme of investment that we need.
I would just say to the Minister, as he takes up his role—I know that he is very enthusiastic—
Written Statement
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Union Connectivity Report and Aviation Tax Consultation
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
The Government are committed to the deepest possible integration of the four nations of the United Kingdom, so that businesses and individuals have the infrastructure they need to trade, travel and do business across the whole country. To that end, in June, Sir Peter Hendy CBE was tasked by the Prime Minister with exploring ways in which transport can better connect the four nations of the United Kingdom, levelling up all parts of the country and helping us build back better from the pandemic. The Government are also announcing that the consultation on aviation tax reform, announced at Budget 2020, will be published in spring 2021.
The consultation will include options to change the APD treatment for domestic flights, such as reintroducing a return leg exemption or creation of a new lower domestic rate. In addition to looking at the case for increasing the number of international distance bands, we will continue to decarbonise domestic aviation as part of our ambition to reach net zero, including through mandating the use of sustainable aviation fuels. All domestic aviation emissions are captured in carbon budgets.
The Government welcome the “Union Connectivity Review Interim Report” published today by Sir Peter. The report marks a key step in looking at whether and how connectivity across the UK can be improved in order to support this Government’s aim to build a stronger and fairer economy for the future. To support this, we are making £20 million development funding available to begin assessing options on road and rail schemes which have been identified by the review as crucial for cross-border connectivity. To achieve the aim of better connecting the UK, the report has considered the creation of a new UK strategic transport network that will allow people and commerce to move freely by road, rail, sea and air, spreading ideas and investment to all corners of this country.
This network of improved routes, which will now form the main focus of Sir Peter’s continuing investigations, would form the transport spine of the country, facilitating quicker and easier travel and trade between all corners of this country, levelling up communities and maximising national potential.
I am placing a copy of Sir Peter Hendy’s report in the Libraries of both Houses.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament. uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-03-10/HCWS838
[HCWS838]