House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
The UK has one of the world’s leading art markets and the free trade agreement we negotiated with the EU will allow it to flourish. We have taken steps to facilitate the export of cultural goods to EU countries. We have developed a new inland pre-clearance process for export licences for works of art, and we are digitising the export licensing system for cultural goods. Those steps will reduce border friction and avoid delays and security risks.
Anthony Mangnall
Notwithstanding the Minister’s incredibly helpful response, there are small businesses in the art and antiques market that are suffering from these teething problems, such as Dart Gallery in Dartmouth in my constituency. So what further steps are the Government going to take to ensure that there is a streamlined approach to exporting art and antiques in future years?
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to champion the businesses in his constituency. We care deeply about supporting them. That is why the Secretary of State met representatives of the art market only earlier this month to discuss issues. We will continue to work closely with the sector to ensure that it can keep trading smoothly with the EU. We recognise that this means a period of change for business at a time when everyone has been responding to the unprecedented pressures of the pandemic, but this is an unparalleled opportunity for the UK to do business differently and prosper. We will continue to support businesses to allow them to take all the opportunities.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
Since 2019, gigabit-capable broadband coverage has risen from 10% to now well over 30%, but with the publication this morning of Ofcom’s market review, the way is paved for the Government to lay out their thinking in much greater detail. We will be publishing Project Gigabit very soon to explain where we will be taking the best broadband connections first and how we will tackle the hardest-to-reach premises as well.
Karl MᶜCartney [V]
I thank the Minister—my county colleague, as the Member for Boston and Skegness—for that response and look forward to a Government announcement in the near future. We have all become more reliant on our broadband connectivity in recent months, and I look forward to the full—and it needs to be full—roll-out of gigabit broadband. I represent two district areas. City of Lincoln Council has 99.4% superfast connectivity, but North Kesteven District Council, where I represent Skellingthorpe, Bracebridge Heath and Waddington East, has only 95.3% superfast broadband, with 2.74% of households receiving less than 10 megabits per second. How will my hon. Friend ensure that the roll-out of gigabit broadband benefits all those in rural areas, including across Lincolnshire, where BT took vast amounts of easy taxpayer money but has not delivered fibre connections or access for all by a long way?
Matt Warman
I know just how keen my hon. Friend is to tackle broadband roll-out in the rural parts of his constituency as well as in the urban. As I mentioned, Project Gigabit will lay out a nationwide plan and it will do so in a way that promotes competition so that we get the best that the whole of the market can offer, including Openreach, but also other providers.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
Our Parliament, our businesses, our students, our economy and our social lives all depend on broadband. In 2019, the Prime Minister promised full fibre for all by 2025, and the 2020 Budget set aside £5 billion for that. Can the Minister confirm that only £1.2 billion of that £5 billion is planned to be spent by 2025, and that today’s decision by Ofcom to remove pricing controls will deliver greater profits for BT while allowing Openreach to charge more in rural areas that are already broadband-poorer? When will the country as a whole get the broadband infrastructure we so desperately need?
Matt Warman
The hon. Lady knows that the Government will spend the £5 billion that has been committed as soon as possible and as quickly as the industry can get the cable into the ground. She also knows that the important balance to strike is between a competitive market that makes sure that we get everyone, from Openreach to Gigaclear to CityFibre, involved, and ensuring that those businesses can make a fair return. That is the balance that Ofcom has sought to strike today.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) [V]
With the publication of Ofcom’s broadband review, does the Minister agree that the time has come to respond more fully to the key recommendations of the DCMS Select Committee report in relation to broadband roll-out, as it seems clear that the Government are set to miss their revised targets? Will he commit to give the Committee its full answers by 1 April? In addition, is the £5 billion sum for Project Gigabit reported in today’s Daily Telegraph just a repackaged announcement, or is the £5 billion now guaranteed from the Treasury?
Matt Warman
The Ofcom report, as I say, strikes a balance between trying to get competition and trying to get a fair return. I think that is a reasonable approach. It is of course important that we lay out the plans in response to the Select Committee’s questions. Project Gigabit will, in due course, do an awful lot of that work. I look forward to responding in full to the Committee’s questions, perhaps even appearing in front of it once again.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Minister for Media and Data (Mr John Whittingdale)
Under UK law, personal data can currently flow freely from the UK to the EU. The trade agreement also ensures the continued temporary free flow of personal data from the EU to the UK until adequacy decisions are adopted. The European Commission published positive draft adequacy decisions on 19 February and we expect the EU to complete the technical approval process soon.
Daniel Zeichner [V]
We all know how important the flow of data is for UK business, but frankly the Government have handed the powers to the EU to turn our data on and off. They have turned us into supplicants, effectively. What are the contingency plans, given that relationships are frosty, should the EU use those powers?
Mr Whittingdale
As I say, the EU Commission has already provided an assessment of the UK’s data protection laws, which found us to be adequate, and there is absolutely no reason why that should not be confirmed once the processes are under way. However, we have said that it is sensible for businesses to make contingency plans by putting alternative transfer mechanisms in place, just in case there comes a point at some future date, but we expect adequacy to be granted within the timescale permitted.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
Over £1 billion from the culture recovery fund has been allocated, including £800 million supporting almost 4,000 organisations and sites across the whole of England. More than 80% of grants and 85% of loans awarded in the first round of the fund have now been paid. As Members will have seen, an additional £390 million for the fund was announced in the Budget, taking dedicated support for culture and heritage during the pandemic to almost £2 billion—an unprecedented sum.
David Johnston [V]
The culture recovery fund has provided a vital lifeline to many organisations in my constituency, from the Cholsey and Wallingford railway to the Oxford Philharmonic to the Didcot Railway Centre, which is a popular family attraction. Does my right hon. Friend agree that just as people have been very good at supporting their local shops during the pandemic, it would be great if, when restrictions lift, they can go and visit their local culture and heritage sites, even if they have been many times before, to help them get back on their feet?
Oliver Dowden
I completely agree. The Government have been here for culture throughout the pandemic, and as we emerge from it, I know that the public will want to be there, too. As our cultural institutions reopen, we will encourage people to get out there and support them. That includes attractions in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as he referenced, such as the Didcot Railway Centre and the Cholsey and Wallingford railway, both of which have been supported through our culture recovery fund.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
The Government are aware of the concerns that have been raised about the challenge of securing indemnity cover for live events, and my officials and the rest of the team at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport continue to work closely with the affected sectors to understand all the barriers to reopening, including financial support, certainty around the public health situation and the potential challenges of insurance.
Martyn Day
Insurance providers, live music venues, promoters and artists have jointly called on the UK Government to support an insurance fund to get live cultural events back up and running, with assurance that covid flare-ups will not ruin their chance at a recovery. Will the Minister meet with representatives from the live music industry to discuss those proposals?
Caroline Dinenage
Yes, I meet representatives from the live music industry all the time, and the Government road map sets out a clear plan that will allow events to return quickly and safely. That is being backed up by the events research scheme, which will give the evidence to provide the how and the when. We really understand how vital it is to get people back to doing the things they love as quickly as is safely possible, and we understand the huge benefits to our economy in allowing that to happen.
Sarah Olney [V]
I was pleased to hear the Minister’s report of meetings with industry stakeholders and insurance bodies. Will she release all documents relating to those discussions, to allow proper scrutiny of the decision making around insurance for live events this summer?
Caroline Dinenage
Where appropriate, of course we can publish documents, but sometimes we have to have conversations behind closed doors, so that people can get off their chest how they are feeling and we can do our best to tackle it. We understand that there are a number of obstacles for our sectors at the moment, and the culture recovery fund has been fantastic at supporting them to keep going through this really difficult time. The hon. Lady will be delighted to know that her Richmond Park constituency has benefited to the tune of over £1 million from the culture recovery fund, which has supported so many incredible organisations, such as the Orange Tree theatre.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
As if the Government’s refusal to underwrite live music insurance was not bad enough for the industry, the UK Government rejected a deal with the EU that would have allowed artists and their crews to tour without visas, as they did pre Brexit. At her recent Select Committee appearance, the Minister said that as far as she knew, no negotiations with individual states were taking place to resolve these arrangements, but she promised to strain “every sinew” to resolve this Brexit disaster. That was over a month ago. Have the Government finally engaged in bilateral talks over visa agreements for artists? If so, with which countries? What progress has been made? Artists are waiting to hear.
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman knows that not all of what he said is 100% true. The Treasury has always said that it would look at indemnity if it was the only obstacle to events being able to take place, and in the current public health situation there is huge uncertainty, which is clearly another major obstacle. He also knows that we did not turn down an excellent visa option from the EU. He knows that the visa option that was on the table would not have permitted touring; it was just for ad hoc events and would not have supported all the support crews that necessarily go with a tour. With regard to international discussions, I met my colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office only yesterday.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The Minister for Media and Data (Mr John Whittingdale)
The national lottery is a national treasure that enhances the cultural and sporting lives of millions of people across the UK, and it has funded over £1 billion in projects supporting the response to covid-19. The Gambling Commission is running the competition for the next licence and is following best practice from across the public sector for competitions of this nature.
Mr Holden
I thank the Minister for his answer. It is vital that the national lottery competition is not just open and transparent but seen to be open and transparent by everyone involved. One of the biggest funds that the national lottery supports is grassroots sport. This week, Consett AFC heard that its FA Vase final will have to be played without any supporters at it, despite the FA cup final just a couple of weeks later being played with supporters. May I urge the Minister to speak to colleagues and the FA to see whether there is any possibility that this vital final—the first time Consett has been to Wembley in over 120 years—might be played with fans?
Mr Whittingdale
I am aware that my hon. Friend is a huge fan of Consett AFC, and of course he and his fellow fans are very excited about this historic match, which is due to take place in Wembley. We are working to try to get spectators back into stadiums as soon as possible. I fully understand his disappointment that it does not look as if it will be possible in time for the match, but I have no doubt that he and thousands of others will be cheering on his team from their sofas.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I will ask a question more directly to do with the national lottery. The national lottery helps to fund many charities, cultural organisations and heritage sites, and whoever is awarded the new licence must be beyond reproach. Conservative party donor Richard Desmond—who persuaded the Prime Minister to raise the jackpot limit to benefit his own lottery and then successfully lobbied the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government over the controversial Westferry development, saving himself £40 million, resulting in an unlawful planning decision that was followed soon after by another donation to the Conservative party—wants to run our national lottery. Does the Minister believe that Mr Desmond is a fit and proper person to do this?
Mr Whittingdale
The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of the national lottery. Indeed, I point out that his constituency has received over £6 million in funding over the last five years. Which applicant should take on the franchise is determined by the Gambling Commission, and of course it will want to be satisfied that the successful applicant meets the highest standards of probity and integrity, but it is a matter for the Gambling Commission.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
The continuation of elite sport was an early priority for the Government during the pandemic. Behind-closed-doors matches have enabled vital broadcast revenue to continue to flow into elite sport, as well as to bring joy to millions of fans at a time when it is sorely needed. Travel exemptions have allowed international elite sports competitions to continue safely during the pandemic. We also provided a £300 million winter sport survival package, giving lifelines to sports organisations impacted by restrictions on spectators. Of course, a further £300 million was announced recently by the Chancellor to continue this support to elite sports while restrictions remain in place.
Antony Higginbotham
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware that in Burnley our local economies rely on the football club that fills hotels, restaurants and bars. While we know that getting all that back will need to be done cautiously and in line with the Prime Minister’s road map, may I urge him to look at whether Burnley football club can be included in the trials taking place to get more fans back using things like testing, so that more and more fans from Burnley can get back to the turf?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend is a worthy champion of football, and in particular of Burnley FC. In fact, I do not think I have ever had a conversation with him without the words “Burnley FC” featuring very strongly, so I am sure his constituents are very grateful for that. I know he shares my view that sport is not the same without fans in stadiums. Officials from the Department will have heard his offer. He will understand I cannot give him a guarantee today, but I do appreciate his lobbying today.
It is of course vital that we again get fans back in stadiums as soon as it is safe to do so. The events research programme will be used to provide key scientific data as to how small and large events could be permitted to reopen safely in line with the Prime Minister’s road map out of lockdown. Government Departments are working very closely together on a range of options to support commercially viable ways to reopen businesses and leisure venues, and further details will be released in due course.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
The Government’s road map provides a step-by-step plan to safely reopen culture, entertainment and sport. This includes an events research programme, which will consider how restrictions can be lifted at step 4 through piloting major events such as the FA cup final and the world snooker championships. Funding announced at the Budget, including a further £390 million for culture and £300 million for sport, will support these industries as they reopen.
Sir David Amess [V]
Southend is home to a number of brilliant local festivals, such as Leigh Folk festival, Village Green and the Leigh regatta. Sadly, it has been announced that Southend carnival has been cancelled for a second year in a row due to uncertainty surrounding any ongoing restrictions in the summer. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that events planned for later in the year will be given plenty of notice of whether they will be allowed to go ahead?
Oliver Dowden
I share my hon. Friend’s regret that Southend carnival is not going ahead. The Government will of course give as much notice as we can, and we have already set out a clear plan that will allow events such as that to return quickly and safely. We are working closely with our stakeholders to give them as much notice as we can and to guide them through each step. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am committed to getting people back to doing the things that they love as soon as we possibly can.
Mrs Latham [V]
The past year has had a huge impact on our young people, and I know we all share the ambition to do as much as possible to support them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as restrictions are eased and many organisations reopen, it is vital that children’s sport is prioritised?
Oliver Dowden
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We all of course in this House know how important sport is for young people’s physical and mental health. That is why all outdoor sports can resume from 29 March, and I would note that that is the first significant easing after schools. In addition, the Education Secretary and I are working closely with sports’ national governing bodies and Sport England on an extensive offer of activities in schools over the summer period.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
My hon. Friend leaves no stone unturned in advocating for his constituents to get better broadband, because we all know how important it is in rural areas. Superfast broadband coverage in Dorset is now up to 96%; that is progress, but the Government have more work to do, and Project Gigabit is a crucial part of delivering that.
Chris Loder [V]
I thank the Minister for his answer. Dorset Council has worked incredibly hard to gather two thirds of the money that it needs for the Dorset fibre spine. The Chancellor gave a stonking budget of £5 billion to my hon. and right hon. Friends, and I am just asking if the Minister would make 0.05% of that £5 billion pound Budget available to West Dorset so we can sort out the fibre spine.
Matt Warman
I do not want to preannounce anything that is in Project Gigabit, but I can certainly say to my hon. Friend that the project he mentions is on the radar of DCMS officials, and I look forward to continuing those conversations so that we can deliver the improvements that I know are so valuable to his constituents.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
The Government recognise the importance of international touring for our creative and cultural sectors. The DCMS-led working group on creative and cultural touring, which involves sector representatives and other key Government Departments, is working through the issues to ensure that the sector gets both the clarity and the support that it needs.
Barbara Keeley [V]
Musicians are eager to get back to work when restrictions allow, but for those who would normally tour Europe that will require a mountain of paperwork to be negotiated both for themselves and their instruments. This is increasingly urgent as we approach the lifting of lockdown restrictions, with little time left to negotiate bilateral agreements. Can the Minister confirm that Ministers are talking to their EU counterparts about securing visa waivers to allow our musicians to tour Europe freely when restrictions are lifted?
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Lady is right: the end of freedom of movement has inevitably had some consequences for touring artists. We want our cultural and creative professionals to be able to work easily across Europe, in the same way that EU creatives are able to work flexibly in the UK, and we are working very closely with the sector to consider all the available options. I have said right from the start that our door will always be open if the EU is willing to reconsider its position, but we are also working with colleagues across Government and members of our working group on our engagement with different member states. I met FCDO colleagues only yesterday once again to discuss this, and we want to ensure that touring can resume as easy as possible for UK artists.
Ruth Cadbury [V]
My constituent George Jackson is a conductor. He has told me that in order to be able to fill last-minute jobs in the EU he would previously have needed just to get on a plane or train and been ready to be with the orchestra the next day, but he says that now he faces expensive and time-consuming paperwork just to achieve the same as before. It seems that the Government have managed to unite artists and creatives across the country in wanting to see the Government sort this out. Even Sir Elton John was urging the Government to fix this mess, so in that spirit can the Minister commit to keeping our creative industries standing rather than letting the sun go down on them?
Caroline Dinenage
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and we understand the strength of feeling on this. The Secretary of State met Sir Elton John recently as well to discuss the issue. We care passionately about finding a solution to this, which is why we set up the DCMS-led working group on creative and cultural touring. It involves representatives from across the creative and cultural touring sectors and all the key Government Departments that have a handle on this, and we are working through all the issues and all the options to help the sectors resume touring as easily as possible when it is safe to do so, but, as the hon. Lady said, the priority is getting touring performers the information and support they need to tour, and, crucially, working bilaterally to ensure the process is as smooth and seamless as possible when they are able to do so.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
This month’s Budget provided further support to sports, arts, tourism, heritage and creative industries, including an extra £700 million to help cultural and sports venues reopen their doors when restrictions ease, and an extension to our hugely successful film and TV production restart scheme. The Budget also included several measures to put tech and digital connectivity at the heart of our recovery, including half a billion pounds for the Help to Grow scheme, and last week I published our 10 tech priorities for the coming year.
As we move from rescue to recovery, we have announced a number of pilots to help get people back, including at the FA cup final. I met the events research programme again on Tuesday; as a first step, I look forward to the return of grassroots sports on 29 March.
Kate Osborne
As highlighted earlier by the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), the FA vase final between Hebburn Town and Consett AFC has been rescheduled to take place behind closed doors at Wembley stadium on 3 May. This is the biggest match in Hebburn Town FC’s history, so I want to add my support on this issue. Will the Secretary of State work with the FA to make the final a pilot event for allowing the safe return of spectators to such sporting events?
Oliver Dowden
I share the hon. Lady’s desire to get sports fans back in stadiums as quickly as we can, as has been highlighted by my colleagues on the Government Benches. We have already set out a road map, and I think it is important to people that we stick to that road map, which would see fans returning socially distanced from 17 May.
We have already set out a pilot for the FA cup final. It is important to understand what these pilots are about. They are about testing fans coming into and out of stadiums; they are not windows to allow extra events to happen. We will of course keep this under review, and if there were a possibility, of course I would grab it.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) [V]
Oliver Dowden
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the need for speed. As he will know, the shared rural network will see the Government and industry jointly investing over £1 billion to increase 4G coverage throughout the UK. On 5G, over 200 towns and cities already have 5G, and our ambition is for the vast majority to have it by 2027. In addition, as my hon. Friend has outlined, building on today’s welcome announcement from Ofcom, I will shortly be providing further details on our plans to make the UK giga-fit.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Over the last two weeks, we have seen an outpouring of grief over the death of Sarah Everard, and we have read and heard numerous accounts of women made to feel unsafe in their daily lives. The Secretary of State will know that words online often translate into actions offline. Last June, he said at the Dispatch Box that the online harms Bill, which was supposed to follow the White Paper published two years ago next month, would be introduced before the end of this parliamentary Session. We are still waiting. Does he accept that the continuing delay has left women and girls at risk for too long, and does he commit to measures to protect them online when he finally publishes the Bill?
Oliver Dowden
May I begin by welcoming the hon. Lady back to her rightful place in the Chamber? She is absolutely right to highlight the issue of online abuse of women. That is why our internet safety Bill will bring forward measures to help protect women online, including measures to enable them to better report abuse, and will also ensure that they should get appropriate responses from platforms. That could include, for example, the removal of harmful content, sanctions against offending users, or changes to processes and policies to support better protection. This is a real priority. We will bring forward the draft legislation at the beginning of the new parliamentary Session, and by the end of the year the full Bill will be before the House.
Jo Stevens
I thank the Secretary of State for his words. I know that he has a very well-publicised interest in the nation’s heritage, particularly in statues, telling museums and gallery experts how to do their jobs through the policy of “retain and explain”, so perhaps he can explain today what input his Department had into the Government’s legislation this week that provides for longer sentences for hitting statues than those that have been given for raping women.
Oliver Dowden
I really wish that Members in this House would take a more temperate approach towards this. The hon. Lady knows full well that the most serious violent and sexual offences, including grievous bodily harm with intent to rape, already carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The purpose of what we are introducing in respect of statues is to help protect statues that have tremendous emotional value—for example, the Cenotaph and others—but that may have quite low financial value.
If it is now the Labour party’s position to oppose “retain and explain”—that may be the case; I have heard from the Leader of the Opposition that he thinks that some statues may need to come down—perhaps she could explain which statues she thinks should be removed from this country’s glorious heritage.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) [V]
Oliver Dowden
I thank my hon. Friend for his question; I know of his passionate concern about this. The Government have introduced a range of targeted measures to support hospitality and tourism through covid-19, including business rates relief and the new restart support grants, as well as the 5% VAT rate. He will know that his Southport constituency is receiving £37.5 million from the £1 billion towns fund, and that will support the development of new projects there, including a new waterfront conference centre.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The UK Government have provided over £100 million to deliver broadband in Scotland and it really is deeply disappointing to see that the Scottish Government are still failing to deliver the R100 programme effectively. The Scottish National party, I believe, promised 100% superfast coverage by 2021—yet another broken promise. We have already announced that central Scotland will be the very first part of the UK to benefit from our £5 billion investment in Project Gigabit, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there will be a stronger role for the UK Government in delivering this programme going forward.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) [V]
Oliver Dowden
As my hon. Friend will know, we are on a national mission to transform our digital infrastructure, spanning the length and breadth of the UK, and our plans to invest £5 billion in connecting hard-to-reach communities include many rural properties in the RG17 and RG20 postcodes. We will shortly be announcing Project Gigabit, our plan to make the UK giga-fit, and I look forward to updating the House on details.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Oliver Dowden
I think that an excellent choice has been made in the choice of the new chair of the BBC. He is a person with considerable financial and commercial experience who is deeply committed to the BBC, and it would be better if the hon. Gentleman refrained from making such slurs against him.
Mr Speaker
We now come to questions to the Attorney General, and I congratulate Michael Ellis on his appointment.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
The Attorney General (Michael Ellis)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The Crown Prosecution Service complex casework units undertake some of the most complex and serious casework handled by the CPS. A recent report published by the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate has found that CPS complex casework units are staffed by highly dedicated, skilled and professional teams who deliver high-quality casework, often in demanding circumstances and at short notice.
Miss Dines [V]
I thank the Attorney General for his answer. What is the Crown Prosecution Service doing to tackle serious crimes such as drug dealing in my Derbyshire constituency?
The Attorney General
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The CPS East Midlands complex casework unit recently worked on an operation called Operation Trent, which concerned prosecutions against a criminal gang for drug-related activities during 2017 and 2018. A total of 26 people were convicted, and the two main defendants were sentenced in February this year. They got sentences of 20 years and 19 years, and the majority of the other defendants in that big case received custodial sentences of between 13 years and five years.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I welcome the Attorney General to his place. The recent inspectorate report on complex case units highlighted that CCU heads are often also responsible for rape and serious sexual offence units, despite the report five years ago stating that the expectation was that RASSO units would be staffed with rape specialist prosecutors. Rape prosecution levels are at an all-time low and urgent action is needed, so will the Attorney General back our survivors support plan calling for rape to be a clear named permanent specialism within the CPS?
The Attorney General
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As she knows, and as we heard from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, we are always willing to discuss these matters and look at these issues. I am pleased that she mentions the CPS complex case units, because the CCUs are effective and efficient, and Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate found that they were managing their casework very well. While the report that she alludes to does identify some areas for improvement, that should not detract from the fact that the inspector found that there was an overall high standard of work during his inspection, and the report read very well.
Ellie Reeves
I have heard what the Attorney General has said, but I am not sure that he grasps the scale of the issue. Last year, the police recorded over 55,000 rapes, but there were only 2,100 prosecutions and 1,400 convictions. The Government announced their end-to-end rape review over two years ago and we are still waiting for it, so I ask the Attorney General again: will he make rape a dedicated specialism within the CPS and will he back Labour’s survivors support plan for rape victims—or will he sit back and watch the effective decriminalisation of rape?
The Attorney General
I do not think the emotive language that the hon. Lady uses is appropriate at all, and I have to say that that is not the case. The reality of the matter is that we have said we will always look at any ideas and suggestions. She talks about 55,000 cases, but only about 5,000 of those were actually referred to the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS works very hard to prosecute and charge all the cases that are referred to it, and the statistics for that have gone up. Now, 65% of all rape cases that are referred to the CPS result in a charge. I suggest that she looks carefully at the CPSI report, which indicates good work in this area, although I very much acknowledge that more needs to be done.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
I, too, welcome the Attorney General to his place and the Solicitor General in returning to her role as well. I know that the Committee will look forward to constructive engagement with both of them.
The Attorney General will know that there is particular concern about the backlog that exists in complex cases because of the difficulty in finding courtrooms, in the current circumstances, that have the capacity to try multi-handed, lengthy cases, particularly where people are in custody. Most of those are complex matters, and they are likely to grow. What discussions is he having with the Lord Chancellor, and with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the judiciary more broadly, to find means by which capacity can be expanded and cases of this important kind can be brought to trial more swiftly, as much as is practically possible?
The Attorney General
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for the work he does as Chair of the Select Committee on Justice. I am pleased that the CPS is doing all it can, as it should, along with all the other parts of the criminal justice system, to clear the backlog, which has accumulated, in large part, as a consequence of this pandemic. More staff have been hired by the CPS, thanks to an £85 million cash injection in 2019 from the Government and another £23 million last year from the Government also to support the CPS. However, he is right to highlight this point. I regularly meet people from across the criminal justice system to work on this issue of clearing the backlog as effectively and efficiently as possible.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
The Attorney General (Michael Ellis)
Any request for my advice is subject to the Law Officers’ convention, but I must make it clear that the UK prides itself on its leadership within the international system and that it discharges its international obligations in good faith. I also point out that the Solicitor General, whom I very much welcome to her place, attends the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee, which scrutinises all the Government’s legislation before it reaches Parliament.
Kenny MacAskill [V]
All are equal before the eyes of the law, and that includes those coming here seeking asylum. Why then are we using military camps, which are entirely unacceptable at the best of times and most certainly during a pandemic? Rather than seeking to copy Australia and transport asylum seekers abroad, is it not time that this Government accepted that refugees have rights and that the Attorney General took action to ensure that the Government adhered to their responsibilities?
The Attorney General
Frankly, as the Home Office has made quite clear, the UK is a world leader in resettlement, so I do not recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. If one looks at the actual figures, one sees that we have resettled nearly 30,000 people in the past five years, which is more than any other country in Europe. As for the use of former military barracks, if Her Majesty’s armed forces personnel can be housed appropriately in those barracks, there is no reason why anyone else cannot be. We adhere to our international and national obligations. This country is extremely open and generous in these matters. As I have said, we are the most open in Europe in terms of resettlement.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) [V]
Reports in the press this morning indicate that the Home Secretary plans to send asylum seekers coming across the channel offshore, thousands of miles away, to have their claims processed. May I welcome the Attorney General to his place and ask him whether he has been consulted on the legality of these proposals yet? Can he reveal which countries his Government are doing this reprehensible deal with, given that this would be relevant to the legality of the proposals?
The Attorney General
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but I am afraid that I cannot discuss what advice I give in other Departments and I cannot comment on legislation that the Government have not presented to Parliament. What I can say is this: the Government’s position is that refugees should claim asylum in the first safe country in which they find themselves. That is an international understanding, and European countries through which they have travelled to board boats to the UK, such as France, are of course manifestly safe.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Attorney General (Michael Ellis)
The Crown Prosecution Service and the police are working closely throughout the country to protect against the threats of county lines drug dealing and safeguard vulnerable victims in Norfolk. CPS East of England successfully prosecuted 26 cases between November 2019 and September 2020, securing sentences of up to seven years, and specialist training is offered to CPS prosecutors who undertake county lines work and prosecutions. The Government’s serious violence strategy details the range of actions being taken to tackle the impact of county lines.
Duncan Baker [V]
I am grateful to the Attorney General for his response. My local police force in Norfolk has one of the best and most robust responses to tackling county lines drug dealing in the country and has made thousands of arrests to deal with the problem over the years. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the message is clear: “Come to Norfolk to deal drugs and you will be targeted, arrested and jailed”?
The Attorney General
I commend my hon. Friend for making that point, and he is absolutely right. I thank him for his support for the prosecution of these odious offenders and offences. My hon. Friend clearly recognises, on behalf of his constituents, the challenges of county lines investigations, which can be complicated and onerous. The CPS intends to carry out a review of its ongoing work, including its effectiveness in prosecuting county lines offending this year. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the work in Norfolk, as I did a moment ago, and I reiterate my thanks for his support.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Attorney General (Michael Ellis)
The Crown Prosecution Service continues to work with police and law enforcement agencies to prosecute modern slavery cases. Early engagement among prosecutors and investigators is central to a successful prosecution. When requested, the CPS will provide early investigative advice in such challenging cases to enable robust cases to be built. I should point out that the CPS now charges more than 75% of cases referred to it by the police.
Mr Dhesi
Shockingly, more than 19,000 human trafficking and slavery crimes have been left unsolved since the passing of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, with suspects having faced action in fewer than one in 20 cases. Even though the volume of offences has increased every single year since 2015, under this Conservative Government the prosecution levels for modern slavery charges have fallen abysmally. Will the Attorney General tell us how he intends to reverse this worrying trend, which has happened under this Government’s watch?
The Attorney General
Actually, it was this Conservative Government—under the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)—who passed the Modern Slavery Act. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have rightly focused enormous efforts on tackling this problem. The Crown Prosecution Service, for which I have superintendence responsibilities, prosecutes all cases that meet its appropriate guidelines, once the police have referred them to the CPS. All CPS areas have an appointed a modern slavery lead, who is dedicated to this matter and attends regular meetings with their local police force lead to try to work through the issue, secure safeguarding board involvement and review performance data. In other words, there is cross-work among the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and others to secure as many prosecutions and charges for this odious offence as possible.
Bill Esterson [V]
The Government have been buying personal protective equipment from Brightway Holding, a company that is being investigated by the Malaysian Government for engaging in modern slavery. Workers are forced to live in squalid conditions and have to work 12 hours a day for up to 29 days without a rest. I heard what the Attorney General said about his commitment to enforcing the Modern Slavery Act in respect of supply chains in the private sector; will he now confirm that the Government will set an example and eradicate modern slavery, including the appalling example that I just described, from their own procurement practices?
The Attorney General
I do not recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. What he ought to do, if I may respectfully suggest it, is to look at what this Government have done. It is on the record that the Government are achieving those issues that we have been discussing, namely: an increase in available criminal offences; an increase in the means by which to prosecute; and more resources to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in order to achieve the prosecutions. The Government are highly focused on that. If he wishes to write to me about the contract, we will refer it to the appropriate place.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Lucy Frazer)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
I know that the Crown Prosecution Service liaised with external stakeholders through the pandemic, because I spoke to the Director of Public Prosecutions in my role as a former Justice Minister. I am aware that the CPS continued to engage proactively with local communities throughout the pandemic. This engagement assists the CPS in improving its policies and practices. For example, feedback from the CPS’s external consultation groups has helped to develop a joined-up criminal justice system approach to domestic abuse cases.
Saqib Bhatti [V]
I welcome the Solicitor General to her new position.
Many of my constituents in Meriden are deeply concerned about recent events and violence against women and girls. Can my hon. and learned Friend please tell me how the CPS is working locally to better understand these issues and to respond to violence against women and girls?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is right to raise this vital and important issue. The CPS works with victims groups through the Violence Against Women and Girls external consultation group and it also regularly engages with people at a local level. Last month, the CPS West Midlands chaired a meeting with independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advocates to discuss these issues. That forum meets four times a year to discuss casework with victims’ groups and specialist services.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Attorney General (Michael Ellis)
The need to effectively tackle violence against women and girls has been brought into sharp relief, as the hon. Lady and this House knows, in recent days. I would like to reassure her that this Government take tackling domestic abuse extremely seriously, as shown by the introduction of the landmark Domestic Abuse Bill. The CPS is working hard to deliver justice in this area, working to protect the public, and has recently published an ambitious 12-month domestic abuse programme to help narrow the disparity between reporting and criminal justice outcomes.
Gill Furniss
In 2020, domestic abuse-related crime surged by 9%, but referrals to the CPS fell by 19%. We know that the CPS is under enormous pressure to clear the backlog caused by covid-19. Will the Attorney General commit to provide the necessary resources to ensure that all victims who report domestic abuse crimes receive the justice they deserve as swiftly as possible?
The Attorney General
We will do everything we can to facilitate that. The reality, of course, is that the CPS can only deal with cases that are referred to it. That is an issue that needs to be addressed by the hon. Lady, but, as I have said, the Government have already introduced the Domestic Abuse Bill to Parliament, which is a landmark and generationally important. That is a signal, just one of many signals, of how important we consider this area to be, and the Crown Prosecution Service will continue to focus on it.
Stephen Morgan [V]
We know that domestic abuse complaints have rocketed during lockdown while prosecutions have collapsed. My constituents are concerned about that and are taking action with Charlotte Gerada and Kirsty Mellor, encouraging Portsmouth City Council to commit to the white ribbon pledge. What specific actions is the Attorney General taking to ensure that domestic abuse prosecutions do not follow the disastrous collapse of CPS rape prosecutions that we have seen in recent years?
The Attorney General
I again point out that the number of rape prosecutions by the CPS has increased to 65% of all of those rape cases referred to it. That number is an increase on just under 50% some time ago. None the less, the hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point about domestic abuse. The Government are working on this area, as I have alluded to, with the Domestic Abuse Bill. There is also a call for evidence, which will inform our upcoming Violence Against Women and Girls strategy. That call for evidence has recently had tens of thousands of new people emailing and writing in. I encourage anyone listening to take part in that before it closes We will look at those responses very carefully and see what else we can do.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Lucy Frazer)
Notwithstanding the pandemic, the courts have continued to operate and the Crown Prosecution Service has continued to play its part in our justice system. I was very pleased to read the recently published report by Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate on the CPS’s response to the court backlogs in the light of covid. The report reflects the CPS’s hard work, and finds that over the pandemic it has maintained its ability to function well, and to continue to deliver its essential public services.
James Grundy [V]
Will my hon. and learned Friend tell me what reassurance I can provide my constituents that the most serious cases are being prioritised, to ensure the protection of the public?
The Solicitor General
Ensuring that perpetrators are brought to justice, and that the public are protected, is a priority of the Attorney General’s Office, of the CPS and of this Government. To achieve that, with the CPS working with the police, we introduced an interim charging protocol last year. The protocol prioritises the most important cases, and I am really pleased that those cases include high harm cases and those with vulnerable victims, such as rape and domestic abuse.
Lee Anderson [V]
How can I reassure the people of Ashfield and Eastwood that victims of violence against women and girls will continue to receive justice in spite of delays caused by the backlog?
The Solicitor General
As I have mentioned, I share my hon. Friend’s view that it is vital that we continue to speedily prosecute those accused of violence against women and girls. I know that the Prime Minister shares that as a priority for our Government. We have put in place a number of measures to reduce the impact of delays on victims. Those include special measures allowing vulnerable victims and witnesses to pre-record their cross-examination ahead of the trial date, which were rolled out at all 82 of our Crown Courts by last November. That is just one of the measures we have taken to ensure the continued better operation of the system for our most vulnerable victims.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) [V]
Court staff in London and Liverpool recently voted for strike action, and listening to evidence from the Public and Commercial Services Union to the Justice Committee this week it is easy to understand why, when PCS members are having to improvise their own perspex screens to protect themselves from covid after managers said it was unaffordable. Does the Solicitor General appreciate how this cavalier approach to health and safety by management has left court staff scared, angry and prepared to take strike action?
The Solicitor General
I appreciate the amazing work that everyone in our justice system is doing on the frontline. As a former Prisons Minister, I recognise what prison officers are doing and I know that HMCTS has done a tremendous amount of work to make our courts safe. I pay tribute to all the work of court staff who are going in and allowing our justice system to continue. HMCTS has put in a number of measures, and my understanding is that it is no less safe to be working in a court than in any other environment.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Attorney General (Michael Ellis)
It is essential, particularly during this pandemic, to ensure that members of the public have a good understanding of the law. I am proud, therefore, that my Department supported Justice Week, which took place in the first week of March, and I am incredibly grateful to the many members of the legal sector who ran and contributed to online initiatives during that week. It makes me proud to be one of the Government’s pro bono champions.
Simon Baynes [V]
As coronavirus restrictions are relaxed, are there practical ways in which my right hon. and learned Friend can help reduce the confusion between Welsh and English covid laws for my constituents in Clwyd South, on the border with England?
The Attorney General
It is important, of course, that everyone around this United Kingdom, and especially my hon. Friend’s constituents in Clwyd South, understands and follows the law and guidance as regards the covid-19 regulations to keep the country safe. Through the information that is available on the gov.uk website, and the Government’s advertising and announcements, the law in England has been made clear to the public. It is really important that the devolved Administration in Wales make their laws and guidance clear to people in Wales. The Government continue to seek a co-ordinated approach across the UK where appropriate.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House to enable the necessary arrangements for the start of the next business.
Business of the House
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 22 March will include:
Monday 22 March—Consideration of Lords message relating to the Trade Bill, followed by consideration of Lords message relating to the Fire Safety Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [Lords], followed by a motion relating to the membership of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body, followed by a motion relating to the appointment of the chair of the Electoral Commission.
Tuesday 23 March—Second Reading of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill.
Wednesday 24 March—General debate on online anonymity and anonymous abuse, followed by general debate on support for the hospitality industry throughout the covid-19 pandemic. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Thursday 25 March—Motion to approve regulations relating to public health and motions under the Coronavirus Act 2020 relating to the renewal of temporary provisions, the one year status report and a motion relating to the extension of parliamentary proceedings during the pandemic.
At the conclusion of business on Thursday 25 March the House will rise for the Easter recess and return on Tuesday 13 April.
The provisional business for the week commencing 12 April will include:
Monday 12 April—The House will not be sitting.
Tuesday 13 April—Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for the business.
On Monday, it will be the fourth anniversary of the death of PC Keith Palmer. Mr Speaker, I know that you will arrange for the flags to fly at half-mast.
There are various dates knocking around regarding the possible date of the Queen’s Speech. I do not know why the Leader of the House does not just come out and say it. Perhaps I can suggest a date—something like 11 May.
I note that the Leader of the House has arranged for the extension of the Coronavirus Act 2020. Could he be clear about exactly how long that debate will be? The other place is debating it for five hours. There was some query, Mr Speaker, about whether we could extend the time of the debate, and you told the Health Secretary that it could be longer than 90 minutes, so I hope that the Leader of the House will confirm that.
The motion is interesting. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether it is amendable? The shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), has suggested that there are some aspects of the Act that do not need to be renewed because they have not been used. For example, emergency powers to register nurses and social workers—not used; powers for the Home Secretary to vary the time for urgent warrants—not used; suspension of the requirement to hold inquests with a jury—not used. Can there be a chat about that after the statement later? We would be treating right hon. and hon. Members, and this House, with disrespect if we did not have a long opportunity to debate that motion.
It would be a pity to rush through it, especially because I know that the Leader of the House will join me in condemning the description of the Department of Health as a “smoking ruin” by the special special adviser who got a pay rise greater than the NHS nurses, who actually got a pay cut. That is a disgraceful thing to say about people who have worked extremely hard—flat out—during the pandemic. We know that the Government are finding it difficult to answer our questions, which is why we need an inquiry for those who have been bereaved by this terrible pandemic. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), have both met the bereaved. I do not know whether the Prime Minister has met the bereaved families. That is why we need an inquiry. If we are going to open up after 21 June, we need to know the lessons learned. Inquiries are very simple to set up now. I am pleased that the Council of Europe is reopening the inquiry into the Pat Finucane case; that will be important so that his family, including the hon. Member for Belfast North (John Finucane), can find the truth.
The Leader of the House will know that the Procedure Committee has been extremely assiduous and published its eighth report of this Session. I thank the Chair and all members of the Committee, some of whom do lots of different jobs at the same time. The Committee has called for all the temporary orders to be extended until 21 June. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether he agrees with that? There is a bizarre sentence at paragraph 26 that I do not understand, in which the Committee recommends that the House
“reverts to all aspects of its pre-pandemic practice and procedure.”
I am not sure when, or what exactly that means. Will the Leader of the House clarify the Government’s position on that?
The Prime Minister promised the fishermen an El Dorado. I wonder whether he knows that that is a mythical city. Perhaps he was talking about the bit where they covered themselves in gold. Either way, tell that to the Jersey fishermen who blockaded the port in protest; they are desperate. It is more desperado than El Dorado. The Office for National Statistics says that there was a drop of 83% in fish exports in January, and that UK goods exported to the EU have fallen by 40% and imports by 28%. These are not covid-related falls, because there are no similar shifts in non-EU countries. We need a statement from the Secretary of State for International Trade, and we need her to publish the impact assessment on the EU trade deal, as the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), has called for. The Secretary of State is publishing all the minor deals, but not the main one.
We also need the Foreign Secretary to come to the Chamber to explain why his private comments are different from his public comments. It appears that the Government are allegedly pursuing an unethical foreign policy. He wants to do deals with countries that do not care about their people—for example, Myanmar. I am sure that the Leader of the House will have been shocked by the image of a nun standing in front of the army there, pleading with them not to shoot at the protesters; 90 people have died. There is no point just having sanctions against a few generals. We want them against all the generals. I do not know whether the Leader of the House has seen pictures of the Myanmar Parliament, but members sit there in a block, unaccountable—sometimes not even moving.
How we cheered when the tags came off Nazanin. But it is a farce that she had to go back to court again. And there is nothing about Anousheh and the other innocent people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) has asked me to raise the case of Luke Symons. His parents and his granddad Bob want to know what is going on. We need to indulge in more diplomacy, and we have an ally in the President of the United States.
Finally, Sunday is international day for the elimination of racial discrimination. It is also World Poetry Day, but that is not an invitation to the Leader of the House to respond to me in verse.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Mr Speaker, my verse gets worse and worse.
I thank the right hon. Lady for reminding us that it is the fourth anniversary of the death of PC Palmer, who died in the service of the House. We keep his soul and his family in our prayers. He is a model of public service, of courage and of the type of policing of which this country is so fortunate, in the general rule of things, to be a real example—of police who are of their community and for their community, and who, unarmed, face unknown risks. We continue to mourn and commemorate him.
The right hon. Lady asks when the new Parliament will be. That will, of course, be announced in the normal course of events, as she knows perfectly well. It is one of those things that she has to ask me and I have to give the same answer every week, and we will no doubt carry on doing that for some time. [Interruption.] There is a little bit of electronic interference coming in—I do not know where that is coming from.
The debate on Thursday the 25th will be an all-day debate. Obviously, that will be subject to statements and urgent questions, but other than that we will be debating this very important issue throughout the whole day. It is obviously right, as the right hon. Lady says, that it should be properly debated. The reason why it is important to extend the Coronavirus Act 2020 is that the furlough scheme will be going on for the whole of the six months. The basis for the furlough scheme is the Coronavirus Act, which provides for only six-month extensions, but that is something that it will be doing throughout that period. As other things wax and wane, the Government have already announced that one thing will continue during that period, so the Act is needed.
May I put in a word in defence of Dominic Cummings? He is an excellent public servant who has done a great deal for this country, and he worked with a pay cut when he was first appointed. He took £40,000 less than he was entitled to, and then his pay reverted to its normal level. I am not sure that many other people working in the public sector take that level of pay cut, and I think that shows his commitment to the public service. He did a great deal for this country, not least through his energetic and effective campaigning in the Brexit referendum, but also in providing energy for Her Majesty’s Government. He is an important figure. His evidence was interesting, though it was not evidence that one agrees with in its entirety. I think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has done an absolutely fantastic job over the past year and is an example of how politicians ought to behave and, perhaps most importantly, to lead Departments.
As for an inquiry, as has been said by Professor Van-Tam, the time for that will be when the pandemic has ended. The worst thing to do now would be to interrupt the enormous amount of work being done in dealing with the pandemic by having an inquiry, but of course it will be looked into in due course.
Her Majesty’s Government will reply to the Procedure Committee in accordance with the Osmotherly rules, which, as is well known, is how replies are made. As I have said before on the Floor of the House, when we asked people to give consensus, to accept, that we had to have these extraordinary measures, it was on the basis that they were temporary. If it were to be the will of the House to adopt some things permanently, it may wish to do so, but we must go back to normal first and then decide what we wish to implement. Otherwise, we would have got the consensus by cheat, and I am not in favour of cheating.
As regards support for fishermen, there has been a £23 million exceptional fund provided immediately and £100 million for them to improve their fleets over coming years, so there is support for fishermen. Maintaining more access to our own waters is going to be a benefit, though I do not think I ever called it an Eldorado; I am not sure that that is a phrase I have used.
The Foreign Secretary’s comments were shockingly distorted by low-quality journalism. It is a cheat that journalists sometimes use of editing text or a recording. It was done to Roger Scruton by the New Statesman, and it has now been done to the Foreign Secretary. It is a very cheap level of journalism, and it is not a proper way to behave. He was absolutely clear that there are behaviours that mean we cannot trade with people—he said that—if only people had bothered not to clip the recording unfairly, improperly and, broadly, dishonestly. We should look at that type of poor-quality online journalism. It is not the sort of thing that would happen in The Times.
I have so much sympathy with what the right hon. Lady says every week about Nazanin, Anousheh and Luke Symons. They are being worked for by the Foreign Office in ways that it can; Luke Symons’s case is particularly difficult, obviously. The Prime Minister spoke to the President of Iran recently about Nazanin. There is no excuse for the Iranian Government holding her. She ought to be released. These trumped-up charges are improper and wrong, and they reflect on a regime that does not acknowledge the rule of law. We should make it clear that the fault lies with the Iranian Government, not with Her Majesty’s Government.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) [V]
I look forward to receiving my right hon. Friend’s response to my Committee’s report. Mr Speaker, I am sure that you have many constituents, as I do, who are looking forward to being able to get married. The news in the road map that they can get married from 12 April has brought joy to so many, but due to what I would describe as an anomaly in the guidelines, it appears that they could legally get married from 12 April in a gymnasium, a hairdresser or even walking down the aisle of a supermarket, but not in a dedicated wedding venue. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the important role that the wedding sector plays and how it has been devastated by covid, and will he use his good offices to encourage his ministerial colleagues to deal with this anomaly as soon as possible?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her question, which she raised in a point of order yesterday. I have the greatest sympathy for wedding organisers, including those in my constituency. It has been an incredibly difficult time for them—more difficult than for many other forms of business. However, the Government’s road map set out that at step 2, weddings, receptions and commemorative events will be able to take place with up to 15 guests in premises that are allowed to open—that is the clear point: premises that are allowed to open. This means that at step 2, no earlier than 12 April, weddings may take place in premises that are permitted to open or where a broader exemption applies, such as places of worship or hotel function suites. Wedding receptions can take place outdoors only, and there has been no change in that plan. The Paymaster General has committed to ensure that any further clarity that Public Health England can provide on this matter is put on the parliamentary intranet covid hub for all Members to see, and it may be debated on 25 March in accordance with all the other regulations, so I hope that my right hon Friend will raise it then.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) again sends his apologies and hopes to be able to resume his duties in this place as soon as possible.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday on the urgent need to address everyday racism. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a voluntary trustee of White Ribbon Scotland. Does the Leader of the House agree that groups such as White Ribbon, which are directly addressing men’s attitudes to women and men’s violence against women, could make a massive difference in tackling those issues? Will he arrange for Government time in which we can further consider that topic and the role that groups such as White Ribbon can play in moving us forward?
I welcomed the news last week that music streaming service Spotify now includes Scots on its list of languages. I have tabled early-day motion 1592.
[That this House welcomes Spotify’s lang-owerdue deceesion tae add Scots as yin o its kent leids (welcomes Spotify’s long-overdue decision to add Scots as one of its recognised languages); congratulates singer Iona Fyfe for leading the public campaign for that music giant to make that change; recognises that Scots is one of Scotland’s three traditional national languages alongside English and Gaelic, with more than 1.5 million speakers and official recognition under the European Charter for Minority Languages; asserts that recognising a language’s existence on large platforms such as Spotify is the first step towards acceptance and empowerment of its speakers; and thanks all those working to lift up the Scots language as well as welcoming Government efforts to promote and protect that language.]
I attempted to table it in Scots, but the rules of this place did not allow that. I thank those in the Table Office for their engagement on that matter and the way in which it was dealt with. Yesterday the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) attempted to wish everyone a very happy St Patrick’s Day in both Welsh and Irish, but understandably that is not allowed. Might the Leader of the House have some time arranged so that we could consider how the indigenous languages of these islands could perhaps be more incorporated into the business that we undertake so that we can all best reflect all the communities that we represent?
In recent weeks, I have, on a number of occasions, raised concerns around and highlighted issues of transparency and contracts. I have also highlighted my Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill, to give that another plug. I was certainly reassured by the comments by the Leader of the House in saying that he is taking this very seriously. I have no doubt whatsoever that he is committed to cutting and tackling corruption. I was, however, slightly surprised to see that others in Government seem to have taken his comments on cutting corruption quite literally by cutting funding to tackle corruption internationally. This is going in the opposite direction that we need to be going in. Could we have a debate in Government time to consider the global impact of these actions and the damage that they could cause to our democracy as a result?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s questions, which are particularly thoughtful. I think I can wish him a happy birthday for earlier this week. It seems that there is a flood of birthdays on the SNP Benches, with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) being a birthday celebrant the week before.
On the corruption issue, my previous career was in emerging markets investment, and it was quite clear that the countries that do best and prosper most are those that are the least corrupt. Rooting out corruption is in the interests of all countries. It should always be at the forefront of their minds if they want to succeed and raise the standard of living of their people. This country has a proud record of avoiding corruption. It is absolutely fascinating how, in the 18th century, we were still quite a corrupt country, but by the middle of the 19th century we had set a standard for honesty that has remained ever since. We should be proud of that. I think it is very easy to defend the procurement that has gone on because it was urgent and it was fairly done. Contracts were awarded, broadly, so that we went from 1% of PPE being produced domestically to 70%, as well as the phenomenal success of the vaccine roll-out. Governments have to be fleet of foot, and bureaucracy is not always the antidote to corruption. Indeed, bureaucracy itself can sometimes be the cause of corruption.
I share the hon. Gentleman’s pleasure that Spotify is recognising the Scots language. In terms of what is orderly in this Chamber, I would be very diffident about treading on your distinguished toes, Mr Speaker, except to remind people, which I do not think is treading on your toes, that modest quotation in foreign languages is permissible. I know that some hon. and right hon. Members occasionally use Latin quips, and that is perfectly allowable, as are Welsh quips and Scots quotations, but not full speeches. I think that is reasonable, because we do not have the facilities for simultaneous translation in this House, and their cost would probably be disproportionate. It is very welcome when people give a joyful message in Scots, in Welsh or in Irish, but it would be difficult for the House to have full speeches.
I echo the hon. Gentleman’s congratulations to voluntary groups that help to change and improve attitudes, whether that is against everyday racism or against behaviour towards women that is damaging and unhelpful to society. I so agree with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said—that we need cultural change. That is what we are doing in this place with the work of the independent complaints and grievance scheme. But ultimately it is not going to be about enforcement or rules, although they have their place, but about getting people to understand that the right form of behaviour may be different from what they have grown up to believe. It is about changing attitudes much more than punishing people.
Mr Speaker
I did feel my toes a little stood on, I must admit; I felt the trampling of the Leader of the House. A quip is one thing, but starting off in one language and switching to another language in a question, not knowing when it will end, does give the Chair a problem. If the Chair had been notified, it would not have been a difficulty; it was the fact that we had two languages before we knew how the full question was going to continue. So I think there is a difference between a quip and a question being asked.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) [V]
If it is acceptable, I shall ask my question in English. May I ask the Leader of the House where he has got to on my recent request for a debate in Parliament on the disastrous Operation Midland? And I do know that he will be disappointed that I am not asking him about when the city status competition will be launched and Southend can at last become a city. Perhaps we will leave that to another occasion.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think it should be policy in this House that every question makes a reference to Southend being made a city, so that the report that is sent daily to the Palace can include this for Her Majesty’s consideration, should our sovereign wish to issue the relevant letters patent.
As regards Operation Midland, as I said to my hon. Friend before, I think an Adjournment debate or a Backbench business debate would be a sensible thing to apply for, akthough we all recoil at the treatment of Lord Brittan and of his widow later on—of a dying man and of a grieving widow. This treatment was appalling and we do expect that people are held to account when they behave badly. This House is here to receive redress of grievance when things go wrong.
Mr Speaker
Let us go to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, Ian Mearns.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
I am very grateful, Mr Speaker, and I take it a Geordie accent is acceptable. Can I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and for announcing the Backbench business for next Wednesday? I was wondering if he could give us an insight into the Government’s plans for the continuation of Westminster Hall-style proceedings beyond the Easter recess, as the Committee next week would like to nominate debate subject topics for immediately after the Easter recess and the sponsors of those potential debates will want to know, in a timely way, too.
Mr Speaker, you will be too young to remember this, but 48 years ago, in response to dreadful Dutch elm disease, we were all encouraged to “Plant a Tree in ’73”. Do the Government have any significant plans to commemorate that campaign 50 years on with an additional national campaign for all of us to engage in to help to tackle climate change and plant a tree or trees in 2023?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The plans for Westminster Hall will be brought forward in the motion for our general proceedings and will extend the current proceedings to 21 June. That is the current expectation. As for planting trees, Her Majesty’s Government have enormously ambitious plans for thousands and thousands of acres to be planted with trees. I think we can all involve ourselves in that by planting trees as well and encouraging others to plant trees. It can be a truly national effort.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]
Merci à vous, Monsieur Speaker. I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree with me that we have all spent far too much time away from the Palace this year, so will he please update us on the restoration and renewal programme to secure the future of this extraordinary building, but also on tackling the questions around fire safety of the building?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises a key question. The strategic review has taken place, but the fire safety work has been a real achievement of the existing Palace authorities. I have some fantastic figures for the House about what has been done to ensure that the risk to life is minimised and the protection of the building is maximised: 7,112 automatic fire detection devices have been put in; 5,949 emergency lights have been put in—one of them outside the Chief Whip’s office, so when he comes out and you see a halo, that is because of our fire safety lights; 3,329 voice alarm sounders; 1,869 new fire safety signs; 1,364 locations for fire-stopping compartmentation; 4,126 sprinkler heads in the basement of the Palace and, amazingly, eight miles of pipe for a new sprinkler system in the basement. I am really reassured by this that the safety of this Palace is so much greater even before R and R has started. When R and R is happening, this is crucial because the highest risk of fire is very often when builders are renovating premises.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]
Despite the heroic efforts of schools and their staff, children and young people have had to adapt to enormous change and challenge over the last year, often chopping and changing circumstances with little notice or preparation, and I truly believe that we underestimate the impact on their short and long-term mental wellbeing at our peril. Today’s National Audit Office report on the Department for Education’s covid response reads like a litany of failure, with no plan for our children or their education in place until June. The Government now have plans for pupils to get up to speed with their studies, but can I urge the Government to show more ambition in stemming the damage this last year may have caused to our children’s wellbeing? Given that we know the effect of wellbeing on performance at school, the two must go hand in hand. Can we therefore have a debate in Government time on how we make children’s wellbeing a fundamental part of the recovery?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government’s record on schooling is actually extremely good. There is a £1.7 billion covid catch-up fund for enhanced support and targeted tutoring, and Sir Kevan Collins has been appointed the education recovery commissioner to oversee our long-term plans to ensure pupils can make up any lost learning over the course of this Parliament. Schools have been a priority during the whole of the pandemic to keep them open as much as possible, because the Government recognise the importance of education. Getting back to normal and helping pupils get back to normal—providing additional funding and distributing many hundreds of thousands of computers to schoolchildren, plus the 57 million lateral flow test kits that have been delivered to schools and colleges as part of ensuring schools are really safe now—has been fundamentally important.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Workers at the LIBERTY steel company are really afraid for their jobs; 5,000 staff and others in the supply chain across the country need help. Can we please have a statement from the Business Secretary outlining what action the Government are taking to support these hard-working families and, after contact with the company and the trade unions, to stand behind the refinancing of the business? The Government accept this is a strategic industry that is crucial for our future growth. Parliament and my constituents at the LIBERTY plant in Tredegar need to hear exactly what the Government’s plans are.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point and I think everyone shares his concern for people working in the steel industry, but particularly in the Trinity Steel plant. The Government are following these developments extremely closely and are going to remain involved in looking at what is happening. The Secretary of State co-chaired the UK Steel Council on 5 March and met interested MPs on 15 March to have an update on developments. My noble Friend Lord Grimstone also met the sector and co-chaired the steel procurement taskforce on 12 March. I will take up the hon. Gentleman’s question with the Secretary of State so that he is informed of the concern within the House. The Government have helped the steel industry with the £500 million in relief for the steel sector since 2013 in relation to electricity costs, but this is an important issue and I understand the hon. Gentleman’s desire for further information.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
I was first elected as a councillor to the County Borough of Southend-on-Sea, so I am glad to hear that it is moving towards becoming a city. I am also delighted—I give the Government great credit for this—that the Government are pushing ahead with the elections on 6 May, when we are going to have local elections, police and crime commissioner elections and now a parliamentary election, and are allowing campaigning to be carried out during the period up to those elections. That is the cornerstone of our democracy and the Government should be credited. However, the regulator of those elections is the Electoral Commission, which is inefficient, arrogant and politically corrupt. It is not fit for purpose, so could we have a debate in Government time about a new regulator that would be acceptable to people of all political persuasions?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Serious concerns have been raised about the Electoral Commission, not least by my hon. Friend and, as he knows, I was very concerned about some of the points he raised when this was last debated on the Floor of the House. With a modicum of ingenuity and with a benign Speaker or Deputy in the Chair, there is a debate on Monday on a motion relating to the appointment of the chairman of the Electoral Commission, which being a motion under an Act lasts for up to 90 minutes, where I think my hon. Friend may be able to say a few words of this kind. I have a feeling that I may be responding to that debate, so I may well say a few words in response.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
Following the Home Secretary’s announcement that the elections for Mayors and police and crime commissioners will return to being first past the post, will the Government publish the assessments of which political party will benefit and any correspondence they received from Mayors and PCCs, to demonstrate to the public that this is not just about party politics, but properly leads to better democracy and more accountability?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Everyone knows that first past the post is better for democracy because the most popular candidate wins, rather than the one that nobody much likes but cannot be too bothered about. Dare I say that it is the party that is so good at losing elections that most wants to change the system.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) [V]
This House has legislated to spend 0.7% of our GDP to support the world’s poorest. The Leader of the House is a great parliamentarian, so does he agree that any change can be made only once there has been a vote in this House? Will he indicate when such a vote might take place?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for this question. I participated in the passage of that piece of legislation, which sets out very clearly what happens in the event of the 0.7% target not being met; it requires the Secretary of State to make a statement to the House. That is the proper parliamentary procedure and it has been laid down in statute, and that is what will happen on occasions when the 0.7% target is not met. That is quite proper, but it does not require any vote beyond that. None the less, even at a slightly lower level, the UK will remain a world-leading donor, spending more than £10 billion of taxpayers’ money on overseas development aid this year.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) [V]
Later this year, England will be hosting the rugby league world cup, including the first ever physical disability rugby league world cup, in Warrington. Can the Leader of the House arrange for a debate, in Government time, on the rugby league world cup, including its social, community and tourism benefits, to allow us to give this much-loved sport the support we can to ensure the success of the event after a really difficult year?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Mr Speaker, you have given me a very clear steer on how I should answer the question. Just in case our eagle-eared friends from Hansard did not pick it up, Mr Speaker said, “Nothing more important.” Having trodden on his toes earlier, I now need to untread on his toes by saying that Mr Speaker is absolutely right, as is the hon. Lady. I cannot promise a debate in Government time, but a great event is going to be taking place, she is right to highlight the disability angle as well and we should do everything we can to promote it. As I have said before, I follow cricket more closely, but she has even encouraged me to make sure that I watch some rugby when this world cup is taking place.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) [V]
Many of my constituents who currently find themselves in unsaleable flats owing to fire safety concerns would like to let their properties so that they can purchase a second, larger property, suitable for a family, but they are anxious about doing so in case their fire safety issue cannot be resolved within three years and they are not able to reclaim the additional home stamp duty surcharge. Can we have a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on whether Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will consider such circumstances as exceptional and extend the three-year time frame in which additional home stamp duty surcharge can be reclaimed if the purchaser can demonstrate that they cannot sell their first property owing to issues with cladding and fire safety defects? As the Chancellor will be aware, such circumstances are outside the control of hundreds of thousands of leaseholders, not only in the Hendon constituency, but across the country, due to no fault of their own?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I can broadly answer my hon. Friend’s question. If, because of exceptional circumstances beyond the person’s control, they are unable to sell their previous home within three years of buying their new one, a refund of the higher rates on additional dwellings can also be claimed, as long as the property is sold as soon as possible after those exceptional circumstances have ended. Where a person is not permitted to sell their property and, as a result, misses the three-year period, that would be considered to be an exceptional circumstance, and this may include properties that are not allowed to be sold owing to fire safety issues. HMRC will consider each individual case on its own merits but, obviously, there will be a broad category that my hon. Friend points to and therefore I think there is some comfort for him in HMRC’s position.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Rape prosecutions are at their lowest ever recorded level, while only one in seven victims has any faith in the criminal justice system. I am going on Government figures, not figures from anywhere else. Given that, may we have a debate in Government time on rape and the criminal justice system?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman raises an extraordinarily difficult point that has troubled many Governments for many years. The cornerstone of our justice system is that somebody is innocent until proved guilty, and that must always remain the case, but we have to ensure that accusations of rape are investigated thoroughly and prosecutions are brought effectively and efficiently. That must be a priority for the prosecution services and, indeed, for the police.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
My local council is Labour-led, and it is using places in my constituency such as Yarm, Kirklevington, Eaglescliffe and Hartburn as cash cows, packing, stacking and racking hundreds of homes in our precious green spaces along already heavily congested roads, with little care for the impact on local people’s lives and while failing to develop brownfield sites. Will my right hon. Friend grant me a debate on irresponsible development on greenfield sites?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The incompetence of socialist councils knows no bounds. Their inability to run things properly or to have a concern for residents is legion, and we must try to defeat them at the ballot box so that we can have good Conservative councils that do things properly. None the less, there is a need for houses to be built, and it is an essential priority for this Government. We need to ensure that young people are able to get on the housing ladder, and we can do that only with a good supply of housing. Where it is put is primarily a matter for local councils, and local councils are subject, of course, to local electorates, so I would encourage local electorates to vote Conservative.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
It is absolutely right that, as we emerge from this pandemic, we need to learn lessons. In particular, we need to understand the reasons for the UK’s “high and unequal” covid death toll, as described by Professor Sir Michael Marmot. I sense that, in responding to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) made on this issue, the Leader of the House was wanting to kick it into the long grass. An inquiry may not be in the interests of the Government, but it is most certainly in the interests of the country, so will he schedule, in Government time, a debate to help define the scope of an independent public inquiry into this pandemic?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I completely understand why the hon. Lady raises that point. It is an extremely fair one. It is not trying to run away from looking into what has happened, and indeed Select Committees of this House are completely entitled to be carrying out inquiries now, but it is sensible to use people’s time most effectively. The pandemic is still going on—the vaccine roll-out is still going on; Test and Trace is still a most enormous scheme being rolled out as we speak—and I think carrying out the inquiry in the midst of the pandemic would be a mistake. That is not an effort to delay; it is merely an effort to be realistic.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
In 2019, Stanley Park was voted the best park in the UK, being described as a
“beautiful, tranquil place away from the hustle and bustle of the Blackpool seafront”.
During the pandemic, we have learned how important open outdoor space is, not just for social distancing but for health and wellbeing. Despite this, my local authority is looking to build on Stanley Park, reducing the already limited green space in Blackpool by around 20%. Will my right hon. Friend look to hold a debate in Government time to discuss the importance of parks in towns and cities and how they can best be protected?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is right to praise the value of parks and open spaces. Who was it who called the parks—our great royal parks—the “lungs of London”? Was it Pitt the Elder? It may have been; I cannot remember. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is not here, because he would be bound to know.
We have seen during the covid-19 pandemic how important access to parks and green spaces is to local communities. Green spaces help health, wellbeing, integration and social engagement. As I understand it, Stanley Park is itself listed and is one of England’s parks of special historic interest, owing to its art deco design. It is important that local authorities build new developments with the consent of local residents and that they build beautifully. That should be a real theme. It always strikes me that, under current planning rules, it is most unlikely that the Royal Crescent at Bath would be built. We have an obsession with building things that are not beautiful. We want to build things that are beautiful, and then, where they are located will become a matter of pride rather than of disappointment. However, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers), we cannot forget that new housing must be built.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
Betting firm Football Index is now in administration, with its licence suspended by the Gambling Commission amid reports that the firm operated like a pyramid scheme and had been admonished by the Advertising Standards Authority in 2019 for creating the impression that the product was a lucrative investment opportunity. Clearly, concerns over how Football Index was raising money have been ongoing, and this has raised serious questions about how fit for purpose the Gambling Commission is, having licensed the platform. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on what can be learned from this episode and what more can be done to ensure that regulation of the betting industry is fit for purpose to protect consumers who collectively have £98 million trapped in Football Index, and will he support a public inquiry into this scandal?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady raises a matter of concern across the House, as is gambling more generally and the right approach to regulating gambling. I suggest that she raise this with the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which would be able to look into it, and I, in turn, will raise it with the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and get her a fuller answer because it is a matter of concern across the House.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) [V]
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As chairman of the all-party group on cats, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether we can have a debate in Government time to look into the encouragement of pet-friendly tenancies?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Mr Speaker, I am glad to say that those who occupy premises on the parliamentary estate are allowed to keep pets—they are allowed to keep parrots, dogs, cats and tortoises, I believe.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Indeed, allegedly, some people even keep tarantulas, though I do not believe that that particular right hon. Friend of mine is resident or has been resident in the House. Pets play a very important role in people’s lives and create great happiness. As has often been said in politics, “If you want to have a friend, buy a dog”, though I am sure that is not true for many right hon. and hon. Members. The Minister for Housing revised the national model tenancy agreement this January, making it easier for tenants with pets to find private landlords who will accept them. The key change was to remove restrictions on responsible tenants with pets, encouraging landlords to offer greater flexibility in their approach to pet ownership. A private landlord ought to accept a request from a tenant to keep pets where the landlord is satisfied that the tenant is a responsible pet owner and when the pet is suitable in relation to the nature of the premises at which it will be kept. This aims to strike the right balance between protecting private landlords from situations where their properties are damaged by badly behaved pets while ensuring that responsible pet-owning tenants are not unfairly penalised. I hope that helps my hon. Friend.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) [V]
Parliament needs to really do its job and take stock of the coronavirus legislation. Many will be surprised to learn that only 17 of the 398 statutory instruments made were under the Coronavirus Act 2020. It is estimated that Parliament needs at least two full days to scrutinise the Act. Will the Leader of the House please respect parliamentary scrutiny and ensure that Parliament has at least two full days to scrutinise it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think that there has been a great deal of scrutiny in this House throughout the pandemic. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has made very frequent statements, and he is making another one shortly after I have finished today. We will allow a full day for the debate on Thursday, rather than the hour and a half that is the requirement for SIs under a Bill. So I think the amount of scrutiny that is being allowed is reasonable and that it will allow people to participate fully and raise all the points that they need to raise.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
On 2 June 2018, a 17-year-old boy called Tavis Spencer-Aitkens was brutally murdered in my constituency. In April 2019, five people were sentenced: four for murder and one for manslaughter. Since then, every single one of them has posted on social media from behind bars, and a couple of them more than once. One of the quotes from one was:
“Five years left, light work”.
This has caused immense distress to the family and friends of Tavis. It is clear that the current in-house, slap-on-the-wrist approach is not providing a significant enough deterrent. We need to look at changing sentencing and eliminating any possibility of early release. Would my right hon Friend consider a debate in Government time on this vital issue?
Mr Rees-Mogg
What my hon. Friend reports is deeply troubling and so horribly sad for Tavis’s family. It must just so much rub salt into the wound. The Government take unauthorised communication through social media and its impact on victims and families seriously. Reducing crime in prisons remains a key priority. Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service works closely with law enforcement agencies, so that crimes committed in prison are dealt with effectively.
We continue to roll out our £100 million spending programme on prisons and security during the covid-19 pandemic. That is funding mobile phone blocking technologies and portable detection equipment. We have also spent taxpayers’ money on next-generation X-ray body scanners to find contraband internally concealed by prisoners, and enhanced routine searching capability of staff and visitors at priority sites. In 2019, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service’s digital media investigations unit worked with social media companies to remove nearly 400 illegal posts and accounts. In 2020, the DMIU has successfully removed 220 posts and accounts as of 30 June 2020. I understand that will not be much comfort to Tavis’s family, but at least something is being done, though I accept that more needs to be done.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
My constituent lost his job, and 16 weeks later he is still waiting for his first universal credit payment. Does the Leader of the House accept that is unacceptable, and will he commit to holding a debate in Government time on the delays to processing universal credit?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The universal credit roll-out has been a remarkable success during the pandemic with, I think, 91% of claims being processed extremely quickly and the majority paid within three days. That does not mean that there will not be occasional errors. While 91% is a high success rate, it means that 9% did not meet that. There was also the £20 a week uplift. The hon. Lady is right to raise individual cases of this kind in the House. That is how we seek redress of grievance and it is what we are here for. If there are individual cases that have not been answered satisfactorily by the Department for Work and Pensions, my office is more than willing to help hon. and right hon. Members to seek redress of grievance.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Next week is the 50th anniversary of Bangladesh attaining its independence from Pakistan at the end of a very bloody civil war. Will my right hon. Friend join me in wishing all Bangladeshis, wherever they reside now, a very happy Independence Day? Will he arrange for a debate or a statement on UK-Bangladeshi relations, so that we can all join with the Bangladeshi community in celebrating this joyous occasion?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The UK and Bangladesh share a close relationship based on strong historical and people-to-people links. We continue to work closely together on our shared interests, including security, development, climate, trade and the Rohingya crisis. We are working closely with the Government of Bangladesh to mark Bangladesh’s 50th anniversary and the 50th anniversary of Bangladesh-UK relations, including on 26 March 2021.
The UK was one of the first countries in the world to recognise an independent Bangladesh after Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was received by the former Prime Minister, Sir Edward Heath, in Downing Street on 8 January 1972. We look forward to the fourth UK-Bangladesh strategic dialogue, which is to take place in London later this year, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is a good thing to celebrate, and to celebrate an independence day that is not independence from us, which is perhaps a rare treat.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
Today the Government announced that plug-in grants for the purchase of new electric vehicles will be slashed again from £3,000 to £2,500; this is after they were cut from £3,500 to £3,000 last year. I know that the Leader of the House is very fond of his old Bentley, but the Government are meant to be committed to a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030. At the moment, new EVs are simply not affordable for many people. Can we have a statement, so that we can ask Ministers in the House why the Government’s policy on this seems to be going in completely the wrong direction?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The answer is that there is a limit to taxpayers’ money, and that as more electric vehicles are produced, so they become more efficient and so the price falls. This is the natural economic process, and it is one that will be mainly led by the private sector. This is how we have got the innovation so far, through the private sector producing these remarkable vehicles. We managed to switch from the horse and cart to the internal combustion engine without large Government subsidies. A little bit of Government help is right, but it cannot be excessive because the taxpayer cannot afford it.
Point of Order
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I rise to make a point of order in relation to what the Leader of the House said earlier. He may have inadvertently misled the House when he used words like “cheat” and “editing a recording” about something that I raised in relation to the Foreign Secretary. I have had this statement from the journalist in question and from the Huffington Post:
“We did not edit any recording passed to us and quoted it in full.”
Could I have your guidance on what the Leader of the House could do? If the Leader of the House is not prepared to repeat what he said outside, he must withdraw it and apologise now; otherwise, he is casting aspersions on the integrity of a journalist. Could I have your guidance please, Mr Speaker?
Mr Speaker
Obviously, the point has been raised, but it is not for me to judge on it. However, the Leader of the House is here, and I look to see whether he wishes to respond and clear the matter up.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The Foreign Office has made it clear, and has said:
“We regret that this audio has been deliberately and selectively clipped to distort the Foreign Secretary’s comments. As he made crystal clear in his full answer, the UK always stands up for and speaks out on human rights. In his full answer, in an internal meeting, he highlighted examples where the UK has applied Magnitsky sanctions and raised issues at the UN regardless of trade interests, and that this was a responsible, targeted and carefully calibrated approach to bilateral relations.”
I repeat:
“We regret that this audio has been deliberately and selectively clipped”.
If the journalist did not clip it himself, he ought to have known it was clipped. He is either a knave or a fool.
Mr Speaker
I think we will have to leave it there. I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Independent Review of Administrative Law
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s response to the independent review of administrative law.
In our democracy, judicial review plays a vital role in upholding the rule of law: it acts as one of the checks on the power of the Executive. Importantly, as the noble and learned Baroness Hale put it in her submission to the review panel,
“In the vast majority of cases, Judicial Review is the servant of Parliament”.
Through judicial review, the courts ensure that the powers that Parliament grants are not used in ways that exceed the limits imposed on those powers, and are not used in ways that are contrary to Parliament’s intentions. The purpose of judicial review is not to question the merits of any decisions made under those powers; rather, it is to ensure that the decision was made lawfully. The jurisdiction of the courts is therefore meant to be supervisory only.
Last year, I launched an independent review of administrative law to examine trends in judicial review. I am sure the House will want to join me in thanking the panel, chaired by the noble and learned Lord Faulks, for its diligence in producing such an excellent report, copies of which I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It was quite an undertaking, conducted in this time of covid. The panel ran a call for evidence, which elicited many valuable contributions from a diverse range of interested parties.
The report’s finding—that there is a growing willingness to accept an expansion of the remit of judicial review, whether in terms of more decisions being considered justiciable, or the way in which the courts review an exercise of power and the remedies given—is worrying. I am sure that the House will agree with me that the recommendations in the panel’s report about how we can restore a more sensible balance of responsibilities between Parliament and the courts are clear, practical and achievable.
The Government are consulting on a range of policy proposals, but there are two recommendations in particular from the report that we are keen to take forward as soon as possible. First, we will follow the review’s recommendation to legislate to remove a type of judicial review known as the Cart judicial review, after the Supreme Court case of that name.
The issue is that, even though decisions of the upper tribunal are supposed to be of the same status as those of the High Court, the Cart judicial review route allows someone to challenge certain upper tribunal decisions by applying to the High Court for permission for judicial review of the upper tribunal’s decision, and potentially onward to the Court of Appeal should the High Court refuse permission, as in fact it does in the vast majority of cases.
In such an appeal, the Court of Appeal is essentially asked whether it thinks that the proposed appeal against the High Court’s refusal to grant permission to judicially review the upper tribunal’s refusal to grant permission to appeal the first tier tribunal’s decision should be allowed. That—eloquently, perhaps—outlines the essence of the problem: we say that there are simply too many layers and too many otiose proceedings that do not serve the interests of justice.
The review analysis found that out of 5,502 Cart judicial reviews brought between 2012 and 2019, only 0.22% were successful. That is an astonishingly low rate. Given that each and every one of those cases required detailed consideration by judges, I agree with the panel that a huge amount of judicial resource is being used to rectify a vanishingly small number of errors. The proposed reform will place the decisions of the upper tribunal and the High Court on an equal footing, and we will bolster the current array of remedies available to the courts so that issues can be resolved in a collaborative way.
I agree with the panel that the courts should have the ability to suspend quashing orders and to mandate a time by which any administrative oversight should be corrected. I will accept that recommendation and would like to consider how it should be implemented and whether suspended quashing orders should be presumed to apply or mandatory.
The steps recommended by the panel are an excellent starting point for rebalancing our system, but the Government would like to go further to protect the judiciary from unwanted political entanglements and restore trust in the judicial review process. As the House will see, the report contains a detailed analysis of judicial review and how it operates in practice, and we are at the right juncture to take a closer look. Today, I want to open up a public debate on the role of judicial review within our wider constitutional arrangements by launching a consultation on further proposals to examine the use of ouster clauses, the remedies available in judicial review proceedings, and further procedural reform.
It is self-evidently open to Parliament to delineate the role of the courts in controlling any particular power because, of course, Parliament is sovereign. Parliament can do this by passing an ouster clause—a considered choice that certain subjects are not appropriate for judicial control. For example, in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, Parliament provided that reports of the Boundary Commission are not subject to judicial review. Unfortunately, the current practice on ouster clauses—not giving them effect—arguably goes against the intention of Parliament, so we are considering putting in place a set of rules that clearly delineate which issues are a matter for the courts to adjudicate through judicial review and which are not. For that reason, the Government want to consider the workings of ouster clauses and find a way for them to be used more effectively and in the way intended by Parliament.
The consultation proposes the introduction of prospective-only remedies, which would limit the retrospective effect of any quashed decision or action. That would complement the use of suspended quashing orders and could result in more considered resolutions. Instead of the sledgehammer of remedies that demand immediate resolution and lead to rushed policy, I want to create a system that encourages solutions to be found through political will rather than legal dispute, so that policy making as an exercise can be much more collaborative and better informed.
The consultation will therefore consider three things: first, whether to give judges discretion in providing for prospective-only remedies; secondly, whether prospective-only remedies should be presumed to apply in all challenges against statutory instruments; and finally, whether all remedies granted when challenging statutory instruments must be prospective-only unless it is a matter of exceptional public interest for them not to be.
As part of this work, to make such remedies effective I am bringing forward proposals for reforms to the doctrine on nullity. The consultation will also consider whether to recommend to the civil procedure rule committee that it considers a range of procedural reforms to improve the efficiency of the administration of judicial review claims.
As Lord Chancellor, my role is to uphold the rule of law and defend the judiciary. The Government want to seize the opportunity to do just that by restoring a proper balance between the institutions that have been so integral to our success as a nation in protecting the rights of individuals and our vital national security, and effective government itself. We are determined to ensure that judicial review—this vital check on Executive power—is maintained for future generations and that the process is finely tuned within our constitutional arrangements, to enable it to be a true conduit for fairness in our society. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
May I begin by thanking the panel for their work? We will study the proposals carefully and note the announcement of further consultation. We would like to see all submissions to the consultations published; can the Secretary of State confirm whether he will do that? I also note that, as feared, the Government are considering making certain decisions of Parliament beyond the reach of judicial review. I note that the independent review of administrative law considered that it would be a serious disadvantage to enable Parliament to oust JR by altering the statutory code. Can he confirm whether that is in fact his intention, and if so, why he has taken the step of ignoring the concerns of his own review?
The Government should exercise extreme caution in expanding the use of ouster clauses to prevent the Executive from being challenged in the courts. That is a fundamental right, and this is particularly worrying, given the Government’s disdain for parliamentary scrutiny and No. 10’s history of hoarding powers.
In my 20 years in this House I have never encountered a Government more disdainful of our rights, freedoms and rule of law than this one. One of the Prime Minister’s first actions was to unlawfully prorogue the House; after he was re-elected, he sent his Secretary of State for Northern Ireland out to boast about how the Government would break international law in a specific and limited way; and on Tuesday we saw the Government launch an unprecedented attack on the British public’s freedom to protest. At each of these moments the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice has chosen to stay silent, ignoring his special duty to uphold the rule of law.
Judicial review is the only mechanism by which members of the public can challenge the Government and public bodies when they break the law. In recent months, we have seen how important that is. It was a judicial review that uncovered the truth about the Health Secretary’s unlawful failure to publish multimillion-pound covid contracts within the 30-day period required by the law. In a Government who have been turned rotten by cronyism—we are having the Health Secretary on WhatsApp pouring a pint to land a deal—accountability matters a lot, and it is not only crony contracts that the Government may be trying to hide.
The Government have made countless mistakes, which may or may not have been unlawful during the coronavirus pandemic. These may help explain why the UK has one of the highest death tolls in the world. Mistakes include failing to provide health and care workers with adequate personal protective equipment, as well as sending hospital patients back to care homes without testing them. Members of the public are rightly using judicial review to challenge the Government on mistakes like that. If the Government weaken judicial review, they may avoid responsibility for other potentially unlawful acts during the pandemic. Will the Lord Chancellor guarantee to me that no judicial review focused on the Government’s mistakes during the pandemic will be affected by the changes that he now proposes?
On the surface, the review has looked at technical aspects of judicial review. The formal scope focuses on potential codification of grounds, the parameters of judicial authority and the procedural changes, but its political purpose is sweeping and dangerous. The person appointed to lead it was highly vocal in his criticism of the judiciary in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 2019 judgment on Prorogation. There has been briefing from Johnson’s Downing Street of the intention
“to get the judges sorted”,
and there can be little doubt that the review is part of an attempt to hoard more power in No. 10.
Can the Secretary of State tell the House where the idea to attack judicial review came from—was it him, the Prime Minister or Dominic Cummings? If the Lord Chancellor still refuses to publish all the submissions to the review—it is extraordinary that he will not publish those submissions—will he at least commit to publishing the submission that came from the Home Office?
A responsible Government would seek to consolidate and protect the democratic legal right of judicial review, not constrain and undermine it. Just as we condemn foreign Governments for attacking the rule of law, as in Poland and Hungary, Members must also condemn our own Government for doing the same. Members from all political traditions should be just as outraged that the Government decided in the middle of a pandemic to use their precious time to launch an attack on judicial review. Madam Deputy Speaker, be in no doubt: this cynical, misguided and politically motivated move is from the same authoritarian playbook. Judicial review is the only way the public can challenge the Government when they act unlawfully. Labour will defend it, so that we can hold this incompetent and untrustworthy Government to account.
Robert Buckland
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I think I can deal very shortly with the rather hyperbolic diatribe about the position of this Government and the rule of law. There is absolutely no doubt about our adherence to rule of law principles, as with all Governments who have preceded us and indeed Governments to come. I take issue with his suggestion that somehow I am staying silent on these matters. I certainly have not hesitated at important moments, for example, during the Prorogation issue, to defend the judiciary robustly in public, as is consistent with my oath.
Let me answer the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, particularly those on publication. First, those contributions to the review call for evidence that are quoted in the report have been published today. The other public responses to the consultation will be published next week. We are making sure that they are all consistent with our general data protection regulation obligations, but I give him that undertaking that they will all be published. The Government submissions to the consultation will be summarised and published within the next 10 days or so, which will give everybody a clear view of submissions to the call for evidence, but in a way that is consistent with collective Cabinet responsibility. I give him absolutely that undertaking that the next stage—the consultation process—will follow the same course as other public consultation processes. I encourage him and all interested parties to take a full role in this.
The right hon. Gentleman made a point about ouster clauses, which deserves some scrutiny. Such clauses are not completely unknown to this House. Indeed, when one looks at the Parliament Act and the particular function that the Speaker has with regard to processes between this House and the other place, one sees that it contains ouster clauses. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 had an ouster clause. The question is about the particular purpose and the way in which such clauses are used. There have been times when broad ouster clauses have been introduced, which have naturally caused great concern. The right hon. Gentleman might well remember one such example, because the asylum Bill that he shepherded through this House back in 2003 contained an ouster clause that was described as “without precedent” in its extent. I sympathise with the position he is in, because Governments will often want to create a high degree of legal certainty, to make sure that the processes are clear and that the parties involved and everybody else knows with certainty what is to happen; I can understand why he wanted to pursue that course then. So it is wise of everybody concerned with this issue to take a long view, consider the matter carefully and come up with considered submissions and suggestions, rather than, I am afraid, descending to rhetoric that does not meet the reality of the situation we are dealing with.
These proposals are sensible, incremental reforms that are very much within the tradition of the development of our law. They are the result of much consideration, not just by Lord Faulks, but by a very diverse panel of different opinions and different perspectives, which can hardly be described as a sort of panel that was designed to reach a conclusion before the document had been written. It was genuinely independent and I value it very highly for that.
In summary, these proposals, together with what we want to consult upon, are a mature, reflective look at a process that plays an important part in our society and our constitution, but which, like all other parts of our democracy—this place, local government and all the agencies of accountability—merits careful and close scrutiny. Frankly, it is our duty, as a Government and as a Parliament, from time to time to make sure that that delicate constitutional balance is being maintained. That is what we seek to do, and I make no apology for the initiative that we have taken.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
I thank both the Lord Chancellor for the tone of his statement and the members of the panel for their work. The Lord Chancellor was very clear in his commitment to the importance and the fundamental nature of judicial review in our constitutional arrangements. Does he agree therefore that, as these proposals are progressed to further consultation, it is important that the conclusions are adequately considered by Government, that there should not be any undue pressure of time to bring proposals forward, that it is better to move carefully and incrementally, and that this House will have ample time to consider any proposals once the Government have formulated them? A guiding principle that we could perhaps bear in mind are the words of the late Lord Bingham in his book “The Rule of Law” when he said that, in judicial review, the role of the judges was to be the “auditors of legality: no more, but no less.” We should not have confusion about how the audit works, but neither should we do anything that impedes the ability of the auditors to do their job.
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee. His reference to the late Lord Bingham and the description of the audit role is an invaluable intervention. That is precisely what the Government seek to do here. It is all about protecting the role of the judiciary as well. I am a fierce defender of their role and I want to make sure that they are not inadvertently drawn into matters of policy, which are matters for this place, the Government, and democratic institutions, and not drawn into merits-based assessments as opposed to assessing the legality or otherwise of Executive action or omission.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
I thank the Justice Secretary for his statement and the panel for its work. We will, of course, scrutinise the report carefully and constructively, but we will do so from the starting point that there is very little about this vital democratic safeguard that needs to be fixed. We absolutely do not share the Justice Secretary’s concerns about perceived expansion of judicial review. Our concern is that successive Conservative Governments have sought to constrain anything that gets in the way of their agenda: a gagging Bill on charities; restrictive trade union laws; cuts to legal aid; and, this week, the egregious attacks on the right to protest. We would be utterly failing as an Opposition if we did not approach this whole project with a healthy and significant degree of scepticism and concern. Talk of ouster clauses and restricting remedies is indeed especially alarming, and leads us to question again—is not this more about the Prime Minister’s anger at judgments such as the article 50 Miller case or the Prorogation case led by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry).
Par for the course, this announcement was trailed this week in the context of migration litigation, but, in that context, if the Government were really interested in reducing reliance on judicial review, why do they not restore the statutory appeal rights that they have slashed and burned over the past decade or invest properly in decision making, so that it is faster and more decisions are right first time? In short, it is better to fix the failing Home Office instead of meddling with one of the only systems that people have left to protect themselves from its incompetence. That is true right across Government. More reviews about asylum seekers have been talked about this week. Tomorrow, it will be people’s housing or social security cases.
Finally, the Justice Secretary has been reminded repeatedly from these Benches that the inherent supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session to review Acts of Government is protected by the Act of Union and the Treaty of Union. Will he confirm that anything that impinges on that jurisdiction is not for this Westminster Parliament or Government to decide?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. May I answer his last question first? I can give him that assurance. With regard to the Cart jurisdiction, that clearly relates to a reserved matter concerning immigration issues, which does, of course, apply to the Scottish jurisdiction as well. In respecting separate jurisdictions, as I always do, these proposals relate to England and Wales matters and have been carefully delineated in that way.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s other assertions, I will simply say this: to conflate issues relating to public order with this Government’s approach to the rule of law and their steadfast belief in democratic institutions is, once again, to stretch reality too far. Without repeating the arguments that we had earlier this week, I cannot equate the adoption of recommendations by the independent Law Commission about the law of public nuisance with the sort of reactionary, authoritarian acts of France of the 1790s. It beggars belief that such comparisons are being made. They do not stand close scrutiny, and I am sure that in the weeks and months ahead, the intellectual poverty of these arguments will be exposed.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) [V]
I thank the Lord Chancellor for his statement. From my recent practice at the Bar, I know that the judicial review system is sometimes abused, and some unscrupulous lawyers will use it when they should not. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Opposition Members would be hypocritical to oppose this review, given that they—including the shadow Justice Secretary—proposed a complete abolition of judicial review in immigration and asylum matters?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend, who is an experienced family practitioner of many years’ standing, will know from her professional experience that, while the proper use of legal process to make legitimate claims is at the heart of our rule of law, it should sadden all of us if we see attempts being made to delay and frustrate that process by the use of procedures that, frankly, are otiose and do not add to the fairness or justice of proceedings but rather detract from the overall outcome and the fairness of it.
My hon. Friend is right to make the point that successive Governments, including the one in which the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) served, have argued, sometimes very passionately, in favour of quite wide-ranging ouster clauses in order to achieve a higher degree of legal certainty. That was what happened back in 2003, when the right hon. Gentleman was in government. What we need to do now is avoid having those arguments in future, with overly wide ouster clauses, and find a proper modus vivendi, whereby they can be used proportionately in a way that will not offend the courts.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
I thank the panel for the work it has been doing. There is no justification for the proposals to restrict people’s access to court. The current judicial review system works well, allowing people directly to hold Governments of any colour to account and enforce their rights through the courts. Instead of this assault on the rule of law, will the Ministry of Justice instead focus on the shockingly low conviction rates for crimes committed against women and girls and publish plans for how to ensure that offenders of violence against women and girls are properly prosecuted and convicted?
Robert Buckland
The hon. Lady is, frankly, wrong to describe these proposals as a curtailment of judicial review. I will give her an example of an area where the use of a suspended quashing order could have helped campaigners. There was a case about tuition fees in which the Secretary of State was challenged for breaching the public sector equality duty. The court could only, at that stage, give a declaration of unlawfulness because a quashing of the decision would have caused administrative chaos. If a suspended quashing order had existed as an option, that would have had more teeth for those who were campaigning against tuition fees, which the hon. Lady’s party supported back in 2010.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
From personal experience in local government, I know that judicial reviews can bring significant uncertainty to decisions that have been made by democratically elected and publicly accountable bodies. Will my right hon. and learned Friend outline the benefits he anticipates from this review in respect of local authorities and their decisions?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend speaks with considerable experience as a deputy leader of a major London borough and a long-standing member of the Local Government Association. He will see that there will be many advantages as a result of the proposals. For example, as I have mentioned, the ability to suspend quashing orders is a very pragmatic and sensible step. It means that minor administrative errors will not result in the entire policy being struck down, leading to great uncertainty and often administrative headaches for local authorities and others. I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his background in local government, will look at the consultation document and come up with further sensible suggestions.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]
The amount of time and resources spent by successive Conservative Governments on restricting judicial review is extraordinary. It is one slender means that the individual has to challenge the power of Government when they act unlawfully. Rather than saying, “There’s nothing to see here,” does the Lord Chancellor want his legacy to be one of undermining judicial discretion, the common law and the rights of the citizen in order to make the Executive safe from challenge and scrutiny?
Robert Buckland
My legacy, I hope, if these proposals are, after consultation, taken forward in the form of legislation, will have been to enhance the options available to the judiciary. If we look at the remedy proposals, we will see that creating extra powers such as suspending quashing orders, and other types of discretionary remedies, will allow the courts to take a more surgeon’s scalpel-like approach to some of these issues, rather than the sometimes rather blunt sledgehammer of quashing a particular decision, making it a nullity, or, at the other end, making a declaration of unlawfulness. I hope that my legacy, whenever it comes, will have been to increase the discretion of the courts and to rebalance their position within our unwritten constitution.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
It seems to me that we need to find the right balance between protecting the rights of individuals to rightfully challenge Executive power and ensuring that government can proceed effectively without vexatious legal claims. How will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that we get the right balance?
Robert Buckland
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s characterisation. The use of the word “balance” is very much at the essence of what I as a Conservative and Lord Chancellor believe in. I can give an example. We can see from the Cart judicial review process, which I have mentioned, how such a process can be used to press claims that, frankly, have no merit and result in delay, which frustrates lawful action. By streamlining those procedures, by ensuring that the existing, reliable and sufficient routes of appeal are there, we can ensure that claims are dealt with quickly, fairly and in the proper place.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Lord Chancellor for his statement, but on 13 March The Daily Telegraph reported that the Government were planning to limit how a judicial review could be used in asylum cases by stopping
“the automatic referral of judicial review cases to senior judges.”
Will the Lord Chancellor be doing that? If so, is anti-immigrant sentiment the motivation behind this Government’s attack on judicial review?
Robert Buckland
May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is certainly no base motive behind these proposals, and certainly no attack on people who make proper applications, whether they are seeking asylum or, indeed, clarifying their immigration status in the United Kingdom? What we seek to do is create a system that will work in their better interests. As he will know, one of the big problems is the delay and the anxiety it can cause to many applicants who have to wait for an undue period of time. I want to ensure that we maintain those appeal processes that need to exist in order to satisfy all those rule of law principles that he and I believe in, but to also strip away the unnecessary processes that just prolong the agony for everybody concerned, not least the applicants.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Judicial reviews are a vital part of the justice system. They are a way for people to test the lawfulness of decisions by public bodies. However, as a mechanism, they are often expensive and their costly nature prohibits poorly made decisions from being held to account. I am thinking of the Environment Agency’s recent decision to award an environmental permit for an incinerator in Keighley. Could the Lord Chancellor comment on how the judicial review process can be made more accessible and affordable so that public bodies can be properly held to account?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend makes a very proper point, and one of the important functions of judicial review is for the courts not just to opine on the legality or otherwise of the decision, but to help local and national Government understand better how to make those decisions in the first place. I readily take the point that there are still far too many outcomes that result from flawed decision making, which is why judicial review is such an important principle. My hon. Friend will, I am sure, be particularly interested in the proposals in the consultation about procedural reform, which are designed to try to streamline, simplify and make judicial review more accessible for organisations and individuals who seek it. But in the first instance my aim is to try to ensure that these disputes are resolved before the need for litigation.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
When this review was announced I corresponded with the Lord Chancellor, reminding him that our independent system of civil justice in Scotland is protected by article 19 of the treaty of Union and devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so I welcome the assurance he has given today that his proposals going forward will apply to England and Wales only. As it is my birthday, will he indulge me by joining me in celebrating another victory for Scotland’s independent legal system, which of course in 2019 led the way in ruling that the Prime Minister’s Prorogation of Parliament was unlawful?
Robert Buckland
I am more than happy to wish the hon. and learned Lady a very happy birthday. I absolutely accept that she and I corresponded on these matters, and she pressed me when serving on the SNP Front Bench, but at no time was there any intention by the Government to trespass on to issues that are the province of the separate Scottish legal system. In this particular instance we have the Cart process, which applies to reserved matters and which of course would apply to Scottish courts, but I can assure the hon. and learned Lady that, if anything, we will be learning from the Scottish jurisdiction, because I note in particular section 108 of the Scotland Act 1998 and its provisions with regard to a certain type of remedy. So once again the great jurisdictions of England, Wales and Scotland are learning from each other as part of our even greater United Kingdom.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) [V]
The time limit to bring a judicial review claim is extremely short in comparison with other types of such claim. There is already a requirement for a claim to be brought promptly and within three months of the decision which is being challenged; any further restrictions would only make it harder for individuals to access justice. Will the Lord Chancellor guarantee that he will not make time limits for judicial review stricter than they already are?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Before I call the Lord Chancellor, I do want to remind hon. and right hon. Members of the dress code, which is the same for those contributing by video link and is that we should wear jackets.
Robert Buckland
I can absolutely reassure the hon. Gentleman that the proposals in fact are the opposite of a restriction or restraint on judicial review. The proposals include a recommendation that the rule about bringing a claim promptly be removed because it does not add anything to the overall procedural framework. Secondly, the three-month limit will remain, but there is of course within that discretion for the court to disapply or to entertain a late application. None of that is going to be interfered with. This review is not based upon some crude attempt to restrict a class of people from applying or to restrict the length of time. This is all about the scope of judicial review and the remedies that are on offer. It is a mature contribution to the debate, and I know that when Labour Members look at it carefully they will be compelled to draw the same conclusion.
John Howell (Henley) (Con) [V]
When many judges were beginning their legal career, I doubt very many of them ever came across judicial review, so much has this crept along over the last 40 to 50 years or so. Will the Lord Chancellor please accept my congratulations on his review of judicial review, and will he also accept that I would like to see it move quicker and faster in order to make sure that we do see a fundamental review? Certainly, of all the judges I have spoken to, I have not come across any who would contradict what we are trying to do?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is right to urge expedition. I think I need to temper his remarks with those of the Chairman of his Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who wants to make sure that this place and the other place have a proper opportunity to scrutinise. That of course will happen, because if there is to be primary legislation, that will need proper scrutiny.
However, I take my hon. Friend’s point. The truth is that there have not been many occasions in the last 50 years or so when we have taken a close look at these issues. Judicial review has developed quite significantly since the late 1970s, so most of our judges now will have had some experience unless, with respect, they are extremely senior. I agree with the point that he makes. We need to remember that this is very much part of the Government’s overall approach to take incremental, structured looks at aspects of our constitution to get the balance right.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
This week of all weeks, when the Government are using the law to clamp down on justice seekers protesting on the streets, they are now using the law to clamp down on justice seekers prosecuting their cases in the courts. They are taking our rights, as they run roughshod over the human rights of others, further exposing the hostile, authoritarian environment festering at the heart of Government. Will the Secretary of State publish all the submissions, including that of the Home Office, to his further consultation and an equality impact assessment on narrowing the scope of judicial reviews?
Robert Buckland
I can forgive the hon. Lady for reading a stock question as she has not had a chance to see the document. I will repeat the answer that I gave to the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) with regard to publication. With respect, I must, however, take grave issue with her characterisation of the Government. I am sorry, but the public order reforms are in no way comparable to the extreme rhetoric she used. This is a codification of the law; an application of well-established legal practice with regard to mobile demonstrations to those that might be static. This is about balancing the right of freedom of expression with the rights of the rest of society to go about their lawful business.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Can we quash this hyperbolic nonsense spouted forth in the Chamber this morning? The incidents on Saturday were because of poor enforcement of badly drafted covid regulations, and nothing more than that. Will the Lord Chancellor take this opportunity to provide an update on the constitution, democracy and rights commission? He will recall with fondness his appearance before my Committee, I am sure, and he might have ample opportunity now to expound further.
Robert Buckland
I thank the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and I do indeed remember my appearance before it. As I explained to the Committee then, the review was one distinct part of a process that I am already undertaking. In January, I announced the creation of an independent review to consider the operation of the Human Rights Act, chaired by Sir Peter Gross, a former Lord Justice of Appeal, with a diverse panel—in terms of geography and, indeed, opinion—across the United Kingdom and Ireland. That is part of an overall process that will result not in a commission trying to deal with all aspects but will demonstrate and reveal the Government’s approach to rebalancing our constitution in the finest traditions of what we do and what we represent in this country.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
The Faculty of Advocates, in its evidence submission to the review, stated:
“There is no case for substantive statutory intervention in the judicial review process. Such an intervention risks artificially stymying the development of the law of judicial review”,
and
“judicial review does not suffer from a lack of clarity, and any attempt to codify it is likely to undermine the very flexibility that renders it effective.”
Will the Lord Chancellor advise the faculty and the House why this astute advice has been disregarded by his Department?
Robert Buckland
I can reassure the hon. Lady that in fact the advice has not been disregarded by the Department, because we are not advocating a wholesale codification of the law in this area. That was a particular issue that the review looked at very carefully. It took into account the evidence of the faculty, as it did the other evidence, and did not come to that conclusion. I will forgive her for making an incorrect assertion because she is yet to have a chance to read in depth the report, which has just been published. When we discuss these matters on another occasion, I am sure that she will accept the point that I have made and focus on the legitimate issues of debate that might still exist between us.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Will the Lord Chancellor set out for the benefit of the House the advantages of these measures?
Robert Buckland
For my hon. Friend and her constituents in Hyndburn, there will be many advantages. The options with regard to remedy actually enhance the rights of individuals. Where courts in the past have had to make a declaration of unlawfulness without any consequences, the option of having a suspended quashing order could allow that middle way to be achieved, where the authority concerned has an opportunity to correct its behaviour in a way that will give a higher degree of justice to the applicants. If these options are adopted, I can see a whole range of different approaches being taken that will enhance the public’s experience of judicial review applications.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the consultation process will be a truly interactive one that engages with interested parties in the public discourse about these proposals and ensures that not only all regions, but all nations, can truly take part in this process?
Robert Buckland
I am delighted to confirm to my hon. Friend that both he and his constituents in Bury South will have the opportunity to take part in further consultations. I suspect that most of the people and organisations who responded so helpfully to the review panel’s call for evidence last autumn will indeed engage again in this consultation. I look forward to a full and lively debate in the weeks ahead.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Lord Chancellor for his statement. I am suspending the House for two minutes to allow the arrangements to be made for the next business.
Health and Social Care Update
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the support that we are giving to the NHS and social care to help recover from the pandemic.
Before turning to that, I want to update the House on vaccine supply and the roll-out, and set out the facts, given some of the speculation that we have seen overnight.
Let me set out the position absolutely straightforwardly. Throughout the vaccination programme, the pace of roll-out has always been determined by the availability of supply. As I have said in the House many times, supply is the rate-limiting factor. The process of manufacturing vaccines is complicated and subject to unpredictability. Because we get supplies out into the field so fast, and run a highly lean delivery system, changes in future supply schedules impact on the weekly availability of vaccine. This has been true throughout. We make public commitments to the goals we can reach according to our best estimates of future supply. That supply goes up and down. We are currently, right now, in the middle of some bumper weeks of supply.
We have now reached the milestone of 25 million vaccinations, within the first 100 days of roll-out, and we have therefore been able to open up invitations to all people aged 50 and above. Yesterday, for example, we delivered over half a million vaccines, and we will do so again today. In April, supply is tighter than it is this month, and we have a huge number of second doses to deliver. During April, around 12 million people, including many colleagues in this House, will receive their second dose. These second doses cannot be delayed, as they have to be delivered within 12 weeks of the first dose. In the last week, we have had a batch of 1.7 million doses delayed because of the need to re-test its stability. Events like this are to be expected in a manufacturing endeavour of this complexity, and this shows the rigour of our safety checks.
We also have a delay in a scheduled arrival from the Serum Institute of India. I want to put on the record my gratitude to the Serum Institute of India for the incredible work that it is doing producing vaccine, not just for us in the UK but for the whole world. Its technology and its capability, which has been approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, is remarkable. The Serum Institute of India is producing a billion doses of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine this year. It truly is a partnership that we can be proud of. I also want to put on the record my thanks to both AstraZeneca and Pfizer, who have been remarkable partners in this historic endeavour.
We have committed to targets, it is vital to say, to offer the vaccine to everyone aged 50 and over by 15 April and to all adults by the end of July. I can confirm that we are on track to meet both those targets. I also want to clear up some rumours that have been circulating and give people reassurance. There will be no weeks in April with no first doses. There will be no cancelled appointments as a result of supply issues. Second doses will go ahead as planned. Most importantly, the vaccine data published yesterday show the life-saving impact of this vaccine. It is not just that the vaccines are safe; it is that they make you safe. You are much safer having had one. Shortly, the MHRA will be saying more on this matter, which of course it keeps under constant review.
I know the House will also want to hear some good news from Gibraltar. Throughout the crisis, we have provided Gibraltar with personal protective equipment, testing and a sovereign guarantee for its covid spending. We have also provided Gibraltar with vaccines, as we have all other British overseas territories. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that yesterday Gibraltar became the first nation in the world to complete its entire adult vaccination programme. I want to pay tribute to all Gibraltarians for their fortitude during this crisis, and the kind words of Chief Minister Fabian Picardo, who said yesterday:
“The United Kingdom has played a blinder on vaccinations and we have been among the beneficiaries in the British family of nations.”
I agree.
The vaccination programme has been a success thanks to a team spirit across the British family of nations. It has not always been easy; of course there are challenges thrown at us in what is the biggest civilian undertaking in history, which affects every single one of us. The whole House pays tribute to those who have helped make it happen, including Emily Lawson, Kate Bingham, Maddy McTernan, Ruth Todd, Nikki Kanani, Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, Professor Chris Whitty, Sir Patrick Vallance, Wei Shen Lim, Sarah Gilbert, Andy Pollard, Pascal Soriot, my officials in the Department, colleagues across the House, and so many others who have made this a success.
With 25 million people vaccinated and a clear road map out of lockdown, we are taking careful steps out of this pandemic. Now, there are 7,218 people in hospital with covid across the UK, down from a peak of almost 40,000 just seven weeks ago, the rate of hospitalisations has halved in just the past 16 days, and thankfully, the rate at which people are dying has fallen by a third in the last week.
As a result, I can tell the House that we are, from today, writing to all clinically extremely vulnerable people to let them know that shielding will come to an end on 31 March. I thank all those who have shown such fortitude, and all those who have done so much to look after the most vulnerable. The shielding programme truly has been Britain at its best—pulling together to help those most in need.
I know that colleagues in the NHS and social care are beginning, cautiously, to look to the recovery ahead. I know that everyone in this House is proud of the life-saving work we have seen in hospitals across the country. Yet we also know that our battles against covid-19 have meant that there are things that we have not been able to do, such as routine treatments and operations. The challenges of covid are still with us. We must continue to treat patients with the disease and bolster our vital mission of infection control, while also laying the groundwork for a recovery that gets us back to where we need to be.
We have backed the NHS at every point in this pandemic so that it can treat patients, stay safe and save lives, and I am delighted to inform the House that we are backing it again today with a further £6.6 billion of funding for the first half of this coming financial year. This money is in addition to the £3 billion committed at the spending review last November to help the NHS meet the additional costs of covid while, critically, starting the work on the elective recovery ahead.
Due to the pandemic, the waiting list for elective treatment in January was almost 4.6 million, and 304,000 people are waiting more than a year for an operation or diagnostic. Before the pandemic, we had reduced the number of 52-week waits—people waiting more than a year—from 20,000 in 2010 to 1,600. We were in fact on track to get that number to zero before the pandemic hit. This backlog of elective work is an inevitable consequence of the pandemic, and I know that NHS colleagues are as determined as I am to put it right.
We are also putting £594 million towards safe hospital discharge. Over the last year, the NHS’s existing discharge programme freed up over 6,000 beds and, with them, the valuable time of 11,000 NHS staff. We can be grateful that we are seeing so many people leave hospital and that our discharge programme has shown the way forward, ensuring that people can get the very best of care outside of our hospitals, helping them off the wards and into the right settings, with the right support at the right time.
Our £500 million mental health recovery package will help tackle the challenges that the pandemic has wrought in access to mental health services. I can also confirm that we will be extending enhanced discharge arrangements for mental health patients, getting patients safely from hospital into healthy community settings, providing better care and freeing up thousands of beds.
The challenge of mental ill health is so important. We all need to keep looking out for each other and doing all we can to strengthen our mental health. Tackling mental ill health is a core objective of our NHS long-term plan, and this Government are committed to seeing mental health treated on a par with physical health and to delivering on the long-needed reforms that we have set out.
I am equally committed to supporting the vital work of our colleagues in adult social care. Last Monday, we reopened care homes to visitors, with a careful policy of a single regular visitor, who will be tested and wear PPE. I know how important this is, and I know that colleagues will be cheered by the stories we hear each day of more and more residents safely reunited with people they love. It means everything to them.
I can today announce a further £341 million to support adult social care with the costs of infection prevention, control and testing that will make sure that visits are safe for everyone. That takes the total infection control fund and testing support to more than £1.6 billion, alongside the free PPE that care homes receive.
The pandemic has tested our NHS and our social care system like never before. That they have risen to meet the challenges of the past year is down to the incredible dedication and hard work of colleagues—they have our thanks. We will deliver on our commitments. We will build 40 new hospitals. We will hire 50,000 more nurses. We will vaccinate this country ahead of almost all others. We will back our NHS and social care as we build back better for everyone. I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
As always, I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
Our constituents will be worried, anxious and disappointed at the news on vaccination last night. It has been an unspeakably horrific year. We have one of the worst death rates in the world and our economy has taken a massive hit. Many key workers under the age of 50, such as teachers and police officers, who through the nature of their work are not at home, are going out and are more exposed to risk, had been hoping that vaccination for them was not far away. Of course, we understand why there will be delays in supply, but this is not fantastic news and nor, frankly, is it expected news.
On Saturday, the Government, or Government sources at least, were briefing The Daily Telegraph about a “bumper boost” and that everyone over 40 would be offered their first vaccine by Easter. Last week, the Business Secretary was hinting that all adults could be vaccinated by June, saying:
“There is no reason why we can’t be optimistic.”
On Monday, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire clinical commissioning group began inviting those in their 40s for vaccination, and a similar invitation went out from Bury CCG. We are grateful for the Secretary of State’s update today, but it will be a surprise to many.
The Secretary of State did not mention Moderna supplies today. I understand that supplies from Moderna will start in April. Is there any prospect that, if Moderna supplies come on stream, new appointments can be offered in the light of that?
About 11 million people received their first dose between January and February. I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said. Can he clarify for the House and our constituents: is he offering them an absolute guarantee that all those will get their second dose within the 12 weeks throughout April? Our constituents will be keen to get that absolutely clarified.
The vaccination programme will need to ramp up to about 3.5 million doses a week from May to ensure that everyone under 50 is vaccinated by mid-July. Is the Secretary of State confident that these supply issues will be fixed by May? Is there any prospect of doing more than 3.5 million jabs a week from May? We heard today from Adam Finn of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation that infection rates may rise as a result of the delays. Does the Secretary of State anticipate that any of the stages, any of the dates, in the road map for easing out of lockdown will be pushed back, given that we are rightly judging the road map by data, not dates?
On behalf of the official Opposition, I take this opportunity to support the AstraZeneca vaccine. Of course, where people are worried and have concerns, those worries and concerns must be addressed, not dismissed. But this is a concern at the moment. Yesterday, for example, I was told that hundreds of people failed to show for appointments at the ExCeL centre and we think that is because of concerns and misinformation circulating online.
There are parts of the country where infection rates remain relatively high and vaccination rates are relatively low. I see that in my Leicester South constituency. Will the Secretary of State pull together a cross-party taskforce of community and local leaders to look at tackling these vaccine hesitancy issues? I again offer to work with him on that on a cross-party basis.
Children make up about 21% of the population. That is a large segment of the population that will be lacking immunity. Obviously, research and trials are ongoing, but does the Secretary of State have a timeline for when he hopes to vaccinate children? Does he anticipate, for example, being able to vaccinate children this autumn, as Anthony Fauci in the US has suggested could well happen over there? Even as vaccination rolls out, the virus continues to circulate, and new vaccine-evading variants could emerge. We may need booster jabs in the autumn, and the winter will be challenging, which is why driving up vaccinations across the whole of the population is so important.
On the Budget allocations that the Secretary of State has announced for the next six months, I welcome the extra funding, of course, but can he guarantee that the NHS will continue to get additional funding after the six months if it is needed for covid care? As he has said, people are waiting longer for treatment, with more than 300,000 people waiting over a year, risking permanent disability or loss of livelihood, and with thousands waiting too long for cancer treatment, risking loss of life. We should not have to choose between cancer care and covid care. We are also facing a mental health epidemic as a consequence of this crisis. Crucially, because of years of underfunding, bed cuts and understaffing, when we entered the pandemic we already had growing waiting lists, our A&Es were in crisis and we were missing cancer targets. Can he tell us when he expects to bring down those waiting lists and meet the various cancer targets again?
Finally, the Secretary of State did not mention NHS pay today. He claps NHS workers and nurses, but he is introducing a real-terms pay cut for our NHS staff. Can he tell us whether he will implement any recommendations of the independent pay review body? If it recommends an increase above 1%, can he assure us that the funding will be additional to what he has announced today? In truth, if he really wants to value NHS staff, he should withdraw that pay cut now.
Matt Hancock
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support for the vaccines, the vaccine roll-out and the clinically-led approach that we have taken in this country, and I mean that as more than simply a polite gesture. It is vital in this country that we have such a strong cross-party consensus, which includes all parties represented in this House, behind the vaccine programme and behind the science. The science means, of course, that we should and we do publish any side-effects, and we are open and transparent about that, but also that we make an assessment as to the benefits and how those benefits weigh against any side-effects. It is absolutely clear from the data we have seen so far that the vaccines are safe and that they make us safer than not getting vaccinated. That is an absolutely critical fact, and the MHRA will shortly set out more details; it is properly for the independent regulator to set out those details.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about supplies from Moderna. We expect supplies from Moderna in the coming weeks, and I am grateful to Moderna for the work that it has done. Of course, we have always been cautious about setting out future supply details, and the experience of the last 24 hours makes me even clearer that it is far better for us to set out clear commitments to the public in terms of when people can be vaccinated. This means that all over-50s now can come forward and that we are committed to and on target to offer to all over-50s and groups 1 to 9 by 15 April.
However, we know that supply figures move up and down. We have seen that throughout the roll-out, and it is part of the normal management of this roll-out. The commitment I can give the right hon. Gentleman is that, for those who are coming forward for second doses, those appointments will not be delayed because of these supply issues. Also, appointments that are already made will not be cancelled because of supply issues. I therefore say clearly to any member of the public who is watching: the vaccination programme is on track to meet the targets we have set out, and if you get the call from the NHS—whether you get it through a letter, a text, a telephone call or even, these days, an email—take up the offer and get the jab.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly asked about the road map. We are on track for the dates in the road map, and there is no impact on the road map from the changes to vaccine supply that we have been detailing in the last 24 hours.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about the vaccination of children and the autumn vaccination programme. Neither of these is certain. The vaccination of children is currently being assessed in a number of different clinical trials and it is very important that we consider the results of those before making any decision. It is likely that we will need a vaccination booster programme in the autumn, not least to deal with new variants, but that is again not yet certain.
Finally, I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman welcomed the extra funding that we are putting into the NHS. He asks whether, after six months, there will be more funding if needed for covid purposes. The Chancellor has been absolutely clear from the start of this crisis that the NHS will get what it needs to deal with covid. That is very important, as is the work to restart the NHS in areas where it has had to be paused and, critically, the work that colleagues across the NHS will be doing to recover the backlog of elective work and make sure that everybody can get their appointments and operations in a timely way on the NHS once more. That is the work of the months ahead and I look forward to supporting NHS colleagues in delivering on it.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) [V]
Was the Health Secretary as concerned as I was by the comments by former Finnish Prime Minister, Alexander Stubb, on the “Today” programme this morning about the threat by the EU Commission President to block exports to countries that were ahead in their vaccination programme? He said that that was a “political reality”, irrespective of any breach of legal contracts that it might involve. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is incredibly dangerous to make threats to the supplies of vaccines and components, alongside casting aspersions on their safety at the very moment when vaccines are the only way the world is going to get out of our covid straitjacket?
Matt Hancock
I agree with every word that my right hon. Friend said. It is vital that we all work together. The supply chains for the manufacture of these vaccines cross borders. They are often global supply chains and it is vital that we work together to deliver them. There is a need for that co-operation and there is, of course, a need for all countries to respect contract law. That is the basis of international trade, and I am sure that the European Union will live up to the commitments and statements that it has made, including President von der Leyen herself, who has said that there should not be restrictions on companies when they are fulfilling contractual responsibilities. Of course there should not, and we fully expect those contracts to be delivered on, because there are very significant consequences to breaking contract law.
One further point is that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was developed because of UK taxpayers putting the funding into the science, development and clinical trials and because of AstraZeneca, with an incredibly bold and generous decision, which we fully support—but it was their decision—to offer this vaccine around the world at cost. Working with institutes such as the Serum Institute of India, Oxford and AstraZeneca are providing a vaccine for the whole world. They are not taking a profit from it. We are very proud of that fact, and that makes this materially different from other vaccines that have been developed for commercial advantage. I am not against that at all, but let us celebrate what AstraZeneca has done, and it only underlines how important it is for everybody to work together to keep their populations safe.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and, of course, any additional funding for health is always welcome, especially during the pandemic. However, we must ensure that it delivers results. A Public Accounts Committee report has found that the £22 billion UK Government test and trace system has had “no clear impact” on coronavirus infection rates in England. Does the Secretary of State accept that the NHS-led track and trace was the correct option, not privatising public health? And will he tell us whether he believes that Serco track and trace did not have a clear impact on coronavirus infection rates because of the failings of the system, or was it because the UK’s pitiful statutory sick pay is not sufficient to support people in self-isolation to stay safe and save lives?
Matt Hancock
People across Scotland who were listening to that will recognise that political point scoring is the opposite of what is needed right now and that instead the UK Government are delivering for people across Scotland the benefits of this United Kingdom working together. Instead of making arguments for constitutional meddling and separation, we are delivering for people. We are delivering vaccines into arms. We are delivering a testing system that works for people across the whole of the UK. Crucially, we are also delivering that enormous economic support package to businesses and individuals alike. All of this is possible only because of our great United Kingdom, and I am glad that the people of Scotland increasingly recognise that.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and pay tribute to him for the vaccine programme, along with everyone else in the NHS. Given the £200 million already spent on the move of Public Health England to Harlow, first announced by the Government in 2015, and the additional £120 million given this year to facilitate the move, will he set out the progress on and timings of the move of Public Health England or its successor body to Harlow and the next steps on the completion of the Harlow campus, as part of our country’s programme to modernise our public health science?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the Secretary of State, I wish to reiterate that there is a dress code for people participating by video link. We expect them to be dressed in the same way as they would be if they were in the Chamber—with a jacket.
Matt Hancock
If I may say so, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think my right hon. Friend would wear that tie if he were in the Chamber as well. He makes an important point about the future of investment of public health. He is a great champion for Harlow, and he and I have spoken about the Harlow project many times. As he knows, we are reforming the way we deliver public health, to make sure that the delivery of health security, especially against contagious diseases, gets its own special focus, and the vital work of health improvement, to improve public health in non-contagious diseases, such as by tackling obesity. The Harlow project has been worked on for some time and I look forward to working with him on the next steps in that programme.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) [V]
The Secretary of State rightly paid tribute to the service and sacrifice of NHS staff over the past year. Several Conservative Members joined me in speaking to nurses and Royal College of Nursing representatives from across south-west London last week. The message to us was clear: they are traumatised and exhausted after treating thousands of severely ill covid patients, and they are insulted by the proposed 1% pay rise. Will he therefore follow the example of the Welsh Government and offer NHS workers a £500 tax-free bonus as well as a real-terms pay increase?
Matt Hancock
As the hon. Lady knows, we are in a difficult economic situation due to the pandemic, and about 700,000 people have lost their jobs. As a result, we have implemented a pay freeze across the public sector, for all but the lowest-paid workers and NHS staff. As she knows, the independent pay review body is looking at this point, but, like her, I bow to no one in my admiration for the work of staff across the NHS. They have worked incredibly hard and have done a huge amount to help people through this pandemic. She is absolutely right to say that we must support them, especially in getting rest and recuperation after this latest peak, because we also have work ahead of us to make sure we can deal with the consequences of covid, including the backlogs for which I announced the financial support to crack through today.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. The roll-out of the vaccine has been truly impressive and undoubtedly led to some heightened expectations. From experience, I recognise that the supply letter from NHS England to the system was not actually unusual. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a possibility that an equally appropriate phrase for the current supply fluctuation might be “expected level” rather than “constrained”? May I ask him to allay the fears of the people of Wimbledon and the UK and confirm that he expects supply levels to be in line with expectations over the next few months and that no target dates for vaccinations will be missed?
Matt Hancock
I can absolutely give that assurance. My hon. Friend is quite right, and he brings his experience as an incredibly impressive Health Minister to bear. It is absolutely standard to tell the system what our future expectations are, but they are expectations, and we are always clear that supply is lumpy. We have set out clear commitments to the public, and those commitments that come either from me or the Prime Minister are the ones that we will meet, and we manage this enormous programme in order to deliver them as best we can.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I, too, thank the Secretary of State for his continued updates on these issues in the Chamber. As a type 2 diabetic who lost four stone when I was diagnosed with diabetes some 13 years ago, I have come to understand the importance of a healthy weight. My specific concern on reported vaccine supply is that the overweight, who are ostensibly more vulnerable to coronavirus, must have access to the vaccine. Can the Minister confirm that shipments to Northern Ireland will continue as scheduled and, further, that clinical priority will continue to be given to those with a high body mass index, despite the alleged shortage?
Matt Hancock
Yes. People listening to the news over the past 24 hours might be surprised to hear this, but there are no changes to the prioritisation and no changes to planned appointments. People will be called forward as previously proposed and in the order previously proposed, including with the addition of opening up invitations to those who are 50 and above. The vaccines will be delivered by the NHS across the whole of the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland, where I work extremely closely with my counterpart.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
The vaccine roll-out has been a tremendous success. Just 100 days after the first jab, we have vaccinated 25 million people. In front of the Science and Technology Committee yesterday, Dominic Cummings made reference to the vaccine roll-out and criticised civil servants in the Department of Health and Social Care. Will the Secretary of State outline the decision-making process that led to the vaccine taskforce and the most successful vaccine roll-out in the world?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. The thing about the vaccine roll-out, the vaccine delivery, the purchase of vaccines and the scientific research into vaccines is that the whole thing has been a massive team effort, and I thanked some people in my opening statement who have been involved. They have worked incredibly hard together as one big team. That is the attitude that we take, and that is one of the reasons why this programme has been successful. In particular, I emphasise my gratitude to officials in the Department of Health and Social Care, who have worked incredibly hard and very, very effectively at making this happen.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call Mick Whitley, I just say that we have 22 Members to get through and something like 26 minutes to do that, so we need to be brisk.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
Care home workers have made enormous sacrifices over the past year to keep their residents safe, and they continue to work on the frontlines of the pandemic. Will the Secretary of State inform the House of what he is doing to increase uptake of the covid vaccine among care home staff and whether high-risk care home staff who have come forward for vaccination in April will be able to get their first dose?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is quite right and I totally agree with him. Anybody who works in an elderly care home should come forward now for a vaccine if they have not had it. We are working incredibly hard to try to make those vaccines as accessible as possible.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) [V]
Thanks to the work of the Secretary of State and his team, I represent a constituency where most over-50s have had their first jab, where there are now very few covid patients in local hospitals, and where the rate of infections is very low and still falling. But I also represent a constituency where hospitality businesses are going bust right now, because they cannot hang on any longer. Given that the Secretary of State says that outdoor settings are very low risk, why do covid-secure hospitality businesses with table service in outdoor settings still have to wait another month to reopen, when the data shows pretty clearly that it would be pretty fine for them to reopen now?
Matt Hancock
We have set out the road map based on clinical advice. I am delighted to say that, because of the success of the vaccination programme so far, we are able to proceed down that road map.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
I start by giving my unreserved support to the NHS for the massively successful roll-out of the vaccine programme, but can the Secretary of State assure the House today that, given the unpredictability of supply, all of those due their second dose will receive it within the specified 12-week time period?
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
Many congratulations to the Secretary of State and his team on the vaccine roll-out. It shows the success of collaboration between Government, business and universities, and the beneficial side effect of more high-quality jobs and more self-reliant and productive capacity in the UK, which I hope we will follow in other areas. Can he give us a brief update on progress with finding new treatments for covid-19 and applying existing drugs?
Matt Hancock
I highly, 100%, wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. The model that we established in the vaccines taskforce—of the holy trinity of business, academia and civil service colleagues working together as one team—was learned from reforms from his time in government. It has worked incredibly well, and I think will do as well in the future.
We also apply that approach to therapeutics, and one of the reasons, alongside the NHS, why we are the only country in the world that has participated in the discovery of all the current therapeutics is our use of that approach. Obviously we are driving it further, and I would be very happy to discuss it with my right hon. Friend.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
One of the gravest threats posed by covid is its potential to create a cancer epidemic. I recently co-ordinated a cross-party letter to the Secretary of State in support of an urgently needed £50 million refurbishment plan for Sheffield’s Weston Park cancer centre. I urge the Secretary of State to give serious consideration to the proposal, which would ensure that patients across South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw received the best possible treatment.
Matt Hancock
I have seen the letter and I am looking into what we can do. Because of the crisis the need to tackle cancer is more urgent but there is also more hope, and the hope is that the underlying technology behind some of the vaccine—the so-called mRNA technology—also has the potential to improve cancer-fighting technology radically. So we propose and plan to support very significantly work on that, in order to find further breakthroughs in cancer treatment. I would be very happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman—and indeed you, Madam Deputy Speaker—about the proposal for South Yorkshire.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
Given the sterling success of the vaccination roll-out in North Norfolk, where on recent numbers we had vaccinated the second-highest number of people by constituency population in the whole country, can my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that despite the recent supply news, the vast majority of them will see no interruption to their being given their first and second doses in the roll-out programme?
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Secretary of State knows that I sometimes criticise him but I sometimes pat him on the back. I want to pat him on the back for much of what he has done. Yesterday’s evidence from a Select Committee just shows that he did not always get the support that he needed from No. 10, and from Dominic Cummings in particular.
I want to see a level playing field—whether it is in Harlow, Richmond or Huddersfield. There is some resistance to getting the vaccine in some of our urban centres. I can assure him that I will work with him, and we all will work across the House, to make sure that people know it is so vital to get the vaccine, wherever they live. I hope we can have a good PR effort, working together to do that.
Matt Hancock
I am a pretty collegiate kind of guy and I generally see the best in people, and I see the best in the hon. Gentleman. One thing that I have really enjoyed about the vaccine roll-out is that it has been a totally cross-party effort and people have really leaned into getting the message out. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman—my hon. Friend, certainly today—on his suggestion.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) [V]
The Secretary of State will know from his appearances before the Health and Social Care Committee that we are concerned about how the backlog is dealt with, so it is great that he is taking such a proactive stance to deal with it. He set out in his statement just how big the backlog for elective surgeries is going to be. The question from Bosworth is: how long does he estimate it will take to clear the elective-surgeries backlog that has built up?
Matt Hancock
I am currently working with the NHS to answer that question, which is a characteristically acute one from my hon. Friend. We are not yet able to answer it simply because the pace at which we can return activity to full, normal levels is not yet clear because the main barrier to that recovery is a combination of infection, prevention and control and the need for staff to get some R and R. We will know more in the coming weeks and months.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) [V]
There was no mention of cancer in the Secretary of State’s statement, nor a single penny in the Budget to boost cancer services, despite the fact that Macmillan Cancer Support’s figures show the need to increase all cancer services by 10% for a solid 15 months, starting now, to clear the cancer backlog.
Macmillan also says that there are 37,000 people with cancer who are not even in the system yet. Given the scale of this crisis, will the Secretary of State agree to set out an urgent, ambitious and funded plan to catch up with cancer, so that tens of thousands of people do not unnecessarily lose their lives?
Matt Hancock
The need to catch up on the backlog is there across all elective operations and of course that includes those for cancer. The good news is that the NHS has worked incredibly hard, especially in this second peak, to make sure that cancer services have remained working and effective as much as possible. Some cancer services have in fact delivered more than their normal pre-pandemic levels of care. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we have to make sure that any backlog is reduced—that is a critical part of what I have been talking about today.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) [V]
The vaccine roll-out has been incredibly successful, but we have now come up against a bit of a hiccup with the AstraZeneca vaccine. Europe does not seem to be too keen on using that vaccine; could we not use its vaccines? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Pfizer vaccine will be available for not just second jabs but first jabs in April?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend has put her finger on a certain irony in two different positions that our European friends are taking at the same time. The best thing to say is that I hope that, following the MHRA’s statement later today and consideration by the European Medicines Agency, we can get the vaccine going everywhere, because the data are really very clear that it saves lives, as the European Medicines Agency itself has said throughout past couple of weeks. It is important to follow the science on this one.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) [V]
I thank all those in Warrington involved in the vaccine roll-out, including our NHS and community vaccine centres, GPs and primary care networks, pharmacists and volunteers. While I patiently await my jab as a 29-year-old, I have been heartened by the progress made so far in getting our community vaccinated.
Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that if high-risk people in the top categories come forward for their first dose of the vaccine, they will not be prevented from receiving it as a result of anticipated delays to delivery?
Matt Hancock
That is absolutely our goal. The hon. Member is 29; I am 42. The fact is that we have to vaccinate an awful lot of people of our age to save the same amount of lives as vaccinating just one octogenarian. We will take this time to loop back and find as many people in the most vulnerable cohorts as possible. That is the way to save as many lives as possible and reduce pressure on hospitals as much as possible. I hope that she will bear with, in the same way that I am having to bear with, until we are able then to open up vaccinations—first for those in their 40s, then those in their 30s, and finally the youngsters.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Kettering-born Professor Sarah Gilbert of Oxford University, who has led the team that developed the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, attended Kettering High School for Girls, which is now Southfield School, in the 1970s. It was at that school that she first decided she wanted to work in medical research.
As Sarah is a heroine of the town, her name is today being added in a mayoral ceremony to Kettering’s historic timeline in the marketplace, which commemorates key milestones, achievements and famous local people. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Sarah on that thoroughly well-deserved accolade from her home town, praising her outstanding work and recognising her as a role model for young people everywhere who want to enter a worthwhile career in science?
Matt Hancock
I am sure the whole House will agree with every single word that my hon. Friend said. They say that success has many fathers, and Kettering has discovered another extraordinary daughter in the vaccine roll-out. Sarah Gilbert worked on the Ebola vaccine before this one and has played a role in saving many, many thousands of lives over her career in medical research. I have no doubt that she will save many, many more in the future. We all salute her work, and we salute her attitude and her team work too, because that is one of the characteristics that has made it possible to deliver these vaccines so fast.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on disability, I have been hearing heartbreaking accounts of the disproportionate effect that the pandemic has had on disabled people across the United Kingdom. According to a survey conducted by the Family Fund, 93% of families said that coronavirus had negatively affected disabled or seriously ill children’s mental health. What crucial steps are the Government taking to support the mental health and wellbeing of children and adults with disabilities?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Member is quite right to raise that; it is an incredibly important subject. Of course, those with disabilities have been recognised where they have clinical priority for a vaccine, as have their carers, according to clinical advice. Part of the £500 million of mental health funding that I mentioned in my statement will go towards further strengthening children’s mental health services, with the goal that mental and physical health are treated with parity, as of course they should be.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The United Kingdom’s vaccination programme has been among the most successful in the world right from the point at which the Government took the decision to fund the scientists who made it all possible. With these constraints on supply, is the Secretary of State still confident that we can follow our road map to release, which is so important to so many families and businesses across the country?
Matt Hancock
Yes. We did fund the science from the start, and we worked collegiately to make that happen. I can confirm that there is no impact on the road map timetable from the news on supply, because we remain on track in terms of the targets that we have set out.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]
If there are indeed issues with vaccine supply, it does not make sense that countless manufacturers across the world are unable to produce covid-19 vaccines, treatments, diagnostics and other health technologies because of intellectual property restrictions and pharmaceutical monopolies that prevent open technology sharing. Will the Government now commit to supporting a waiver of covid-19-related patents at the World Trade Organisation, or is artificially limiting vaccine supply official Government policy?
Matt Hancock
I am very happy to provide the hon. Lady with a briefing, because she should be very proud of her country. AstraZeneca is providing the Oxford vaccine free of charge—it is not charging for any intellectual property rights—right around the world. That is not true, as she implies, for all the vaccine companies, but she should be really, really proud of ours.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) [V]
I was listening to the excellent “Covid Confidential” podcast on the BBC and was surprised and delighted to find out that when the various vaccines were nearing production they were named after submarines built in my constituency, so may I first thank my right hon. Friend for his choice of names? Secondly, not to labour this analogy, a good defence rests on having a good range of options, and Kate Bingham recently said that not having monoclonal antibodies as part of our defence is the gap in our armour, so can my right hon. Friend give an update on where his Department is on this?
Matt Hancock
Yes, this is an incredibly important subject and we are working very hard on it with clinical leads and external experts. I said earlier that success has many fathers, and I am sure that the people of Barrow are very proud of their role in making sure that we could keep what needed to be kept confidential confidential. We have now had to change all those names, because everybody knows about it.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) [V]
GP surgeries have been crucial to the roll-out of the vaccine, and I pay tribute to all those involved. However, many of my constituents are concerned that the Centene Corporation, a massive American health insurance firm, has just taken over dozens of GP surgeries in London, including Brondesbury and Swiss Cottage GP hubs in Hampstead and Kilburn and others in Camden. Does the Secretary of State share their concern that this appears to have taken place with no meaningful public scrutiny, and their concerns about the increasing involvement of US healthcare corporations in our health system?
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]
Given the link between covid deaths and obesity, does the Secretary of State share my concern that children from the poorest constituencies are being the most heavily targeted by social media junk food adverts, and that over half of the top UK child influencers on Instagram have promoted junk food in the last year? Will he meet some of the young people from Bite Back 2030, who are concerned about this?
Matt Hancock
I would be very happy to ensure that the children of Bite Back 2030 meet the Minister for public health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), who leads on these matters, and my hon. Friend is right to raise that incredibly important point.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Almost as soon as the Secretary of State sat down yesterday after his statement, I was contacted by a constituent who is shielding and is very concerned that shielding will now end on 31 March, but he has not had his second jab. Will the Secretary of State be issuing guidelines on what those people should do, as my constituent is asking?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely, and we will be writing to all those who are shielding to set out the details so that they get a personal copy of those guidelines. What I would say is that the rates of covid now are much lower than when we paused shielding in the past, so this is not just because of the vaccination programme—which of course has benefited many people who are shielding, and we know that the first dose brings huge safety and benefit already—but is also because the rates of covid are so much lower.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) [V]
On behalf of their citizens, who need to be vaccinated and who need to see their economies reopened, I have to say I am personally in despair at the short-sighted decisions taken by many European countries and what seems to be their absurd misapplication of the precautionary principle. I am sure my right hon. Friend would wish to be diplomatic, so will he join me in praising what we are doing, and the MHRA and the JCVI for their sensible and proportionate decision making, which has always prioritised public health here in the UK both in respect of the approvals given for vaccines and the dosing regimens they subsequently recommended?
Matt Hancock
Yes, my hon. Friend puts it characteristically well. It is very important to take all considerations into account when making decisions like these. Of course, the precautionary principle is important, but when there are such huge benefits to vaccination, over-precaution is a mistake. We have to take overall public health into account.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
The Salford system has delivered the covid vaccine in an unprecedented way. Everyone from cohorts 1 to 9 has been invited at least once—some three or four times—and I understand that, even with the vaccine shortage and guaranteed second doses factored in, we will run out of people in cohorts 1 to 9 to give our current vaccine supply to. Will the Secretary of State authorise Salford to proceed to cohorts 10, 11 and 12 and begin to prioritise the vulnerable members in those age groups, so that we can maximise the doses we have?
Matt Hancock
No. What everybody in Salford and around the country needs to do is make sure that every last effort is made to reach every last person in groups 1 to 9, because they are the most vulnerable. Only in exceptional circumstances should people under the age of 50 who are not in groups 1 to 9 be invited for vaccination. The message is incredibly clear and I speak very directly to the whole team, including in Salford: please put all your efforts in the forthcoming weeks into delivering vaccines for groups 1 to 9.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) [V]
As I am over 50, I will get my Oxford-AstraZeneca jab later today at my local Honley village vaccination centre, which has now delivered over 10,000 vaccinations. Will the Health and Social Care Secretary join me in thanking our wonderful local NHS, the pharmacy involved and all the volunteers there, and confirm once again that we are still on track to vaccinate all over-50s and deliver the second doses as planned?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. It is wonderful to see the joy on my hon. Friend’s face in anticipation of his jab. I hope that he gets the opportunity to change into a short-sleeved shirt, because some colleagues have inadvertently had to undo an awful lot of buttons in order to be vaccinated. Although I imagine that some of their more enthusiastic constituents may have enjoyed the sight, I think it is best if we gents wear a short-sleeved shirt so that we do not have to bear our hairy chests.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I will suspend the House for approximately three minutes to make the necessary arrangements for the next business.
Data Transparency and Accountability: Covid-19
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now come to the Select Committee statement. William Wragg will speak for up to 10 minutes during which no interventions may be made or taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call William Wragg to respond to them in turn. I should say that the questions should be brief so that the Chair can answer them succinctly. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members are aware that there are two very well-subscribed debates to follow. I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, William Wragg.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to present to the House the latest report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for accommodating us in today’s proceedings. May I also place on record my thanks to fellow members of the Committee for their work during this inquiry on Government transparency and accountability during covid-19: the data underpinning decisions? We are also indebted to the Committee staff for their hard work, particularly Claire Hardy, who has been with us this past year on secondment from the National Audit Office
To be clear, this report does not critique the Government’s decisions, but asks important questions about how transparent those decisions were and whether the data are available for parliamentarians and, indeed, the public, to hold them to account. The report also examines whether data were shared with local leaders for the purpose of informing the response to the pandemic. As we say in the report, data transparency is not just a moral issue, but integral to the success of the response to the pandemic. Transparency builds trust and trust aids compliance with the rules.
It is important to acknowledge properly the progress to date. The Government have amassed enormous amounts of data from a standing start, making much of it available to the public, including on the covid-19 dashboard and through surveys by the Office for National Statistics, including the infection survey. The report pays tribute to the hard work of public servants involved at all levels in this huge endeavour.
However, although the report welcomes the publication of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies minutes, which we called for in a letter to the Prime Minister last May, it also states that publication needs to be more consistent and timelier. It is worth noting that SAGE minutes have been published, on average, 49 days after the meeting, with some significantly longer gaps. For example, a SAGE meeting that took place on 30 July 2020 did not see its minutes published until 134 days later, on 11 December.
The report considers public communications and, while recognising that the Downing Street press briefings have been an important exercise in gaining some democratic consent, it is not without criticism for both the use of reasonable worst-case scenarios and sometimes poorly presented data. The report notes that some data presentation appears to be have been impacted by political considerations.
The Committee is very clear in its view that statistics should be used for the purpose of genuinely informing the public and that open and honest communication builds trust, even when, on occasion, the Government have, for whatever reason, fallen short of their promises. If I were minded to deploy Disraeli’s quote about statistics, this would be the point at which to do so.
The first principle of the UK Statistics Authority code of practice is trustworthiness.
It states that data should be presented “impartially and objectively”. It is, I am afraid, evident that Ministers have not always lived up to the expectations of the UK Statistics Authority code of practice.
The report finds that creating a sense of anxiety—for example, through quoting large numbers—could be counterproductive in the effort to encourage behaviour change, because, to quote from one of our expert witnesses,
“inducing fear leads people to turn away and to turn off.”
On the other hand, being open and honest, and communicating uncertainties in data, builds trust, and trust is central to the social contract between Government and the people.
While SAGE has certainly become prominent in the past year, the report notes that it might not be well understood by the public, and it is questionable how helpful some public statements by individual members have been. The 2012 SAGE guidance from the Cabinet Office states that SAGE members should be provided with “clear guidance on confidentiality”, but it is unclear if this had happened. The Committee recommends that the ministerial code should be strengthened to require Ministers to abide by the UK Statistics Authority code of practice. When Ministers or senior officials quote statistics, underlying data must be published. Some expectations should be laid out about the appropriate way for SAGE advisers to communicate publicly.
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of our inquiry is that the Committee struggled to establish who the Government see as accountable for ensuring that decisions are underpinned by data. For example, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster passed questions and letters from me to the Department of Health and Social Care on issues that must have included wider considerations beyond health. It is not acceptable to pass apparent responsibility for decisions between the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health and Social Care when so much is at stake. Lines of accountability must be clear and decision making must be transparent. Of course, while only the Prime Minister can be accountable for key decisions such as the lockdown, it is the Committee’s view that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should be accountable for ensuring that these decisions are informed by data through Covid O and as part of the co-ordinated response.
We were disappointed that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster declined to appear before the Committee on this specific inquiry and sent junior Ministers in his place to answer questions on these specific matters. Unfortunately, the Ministers sent before us were not able to answer many of our questions. Both Ministers who appeared stated that they were not involved in the decision-making process, and our report questions why they were sent to the Committee, given that both the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health and Social Care were alerted to the themes of the questions prior to the session. The ability of Select Committees to hold Ministers to account for decisions is a vital part of our democratic process. This is particularly true at a time when the country is facing the toughest possible restrictions on our freedoms and when detailed scrutiny of the Government’s decisions has not always been possible in the timeframes required.
In May 2020, the Committee heard from the national statistician that responding to the next stage of the pandemic would require more localised data. The report criticises a national “by default” approach to data that included local leaders not receiving data in sufficient detail early enough. There was a reluctance from Whitehall to share granular data despite requests by directors of public health. New systems were set up outside existing systems, so data could not flow easily. Indeed, initially, test and trace data was being collected in spreadsheets. The consequences of this approach were manifold and included interoperability issues, problems with data sharing and extraction of data, and concerns or, indeed, mistrust about data quality. To quote the president of the Association of Directors of Public Health,
“if we had had all the data we have now in July or earlier, we would have had a stronger response to the epidemic.”
We also heard that existing health data systems were fragmented. Data that is key to decision making on the road map should be shared immediately, ahead of the potential renewal of the Coronavirus Act 2020 next week. The Government should publish a comprehensive list of what data is actually available. The Department of Health and Social Care, with support from the UK Statistics Authority, should undertake an urgent review of health data systems in England. Ministers who appeared before our Committee were unable to provide answers to the most basic of these questions as it was evident that neither of them had been involved in the decision making. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General directed the question of the first lockdown to the Health Minister when clearly the Department of Health could not have made decisions that involved much wider considerations such as the economy.
There was not a consistent framework in place for tiering decisions. There were five tests in June 2020, five indicators in November 2020, and now there is a road map with four tests. Indicators have not had data thresholds, which has created confusion. It was hard to find data under the indicators, and “pressure on the NHS” was not well defined. On 19 December, 26 local authorities were put into tier 4, in spite of having infection rates at the same range as areas in tier 2. In October, local leaders told us that they were not informed about decisions prior to them being announced, and could not prepare communications and reassurance for local communities. In the midst of opaque decision making, there developed a sense of confusion and mistrust, and it quickly became apparent that some areas had been placed in higher tiers than neighbouring areas with worse infection rates.
The February road map contains dates, but not much in the way of data. Wording such as
“vaccine deployment programme continues successfully”
is not sufficient, as success is not defined. Although evidence on the safety of hospitality venues was far from conclusive, the report states that the Government were “not clear” on the evidence underpinning the decision to close hospitality in higher tiers. Fundamentally, if the Government are asking businesses to close—risking jobs, livelihoods and the very survival of those businesses—it must be clear why this should happen, and the evidence outlined demonstrates that the lack of clear communication of any evidence that does exist to underpin the decisions has created frustration and mistrust.
The Cabinet Office must outline the range of data and information it will use to lift the current lockdown. The priority must be a clear and consistent framework. The Government should provide links from road map indicators to local authority level data. They must publish thresholds aligned to the road map, and they should publish the data justifying restrictions that will remain in place on businesses at each step of that road map. I commend the report to the House.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) [V]
The Chair of the Committee referred to our evidence about data sharing locally and the Government’s decision to set up new organisations. The British Medical Association said:
“Our devastating mortality figures could in part be a result of the failure of the Government to…share data”.
With rates still variable across the country, how does the hon. Member think we can ensure that the Government learn those lessons—to include and trust local experts—as we come out of lockdown?
Mr Wragg
I thank the hon. Lady for her assiduous work as a member of the Committee and her significant input to this particular inquiry.
In answer to her question, I suspect that the overriding concern for some in Whitehall and NHS England was that the ideas were not necessarily invented by them, and they were therefore mistrustful of them. It is vital that existing local expertise and infrastructure should be called on to the fullest amount—more than it has been in recent times.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his Committee’s report, which has an emphasis on the availability of data to the public, and highlights the confusion caused when the specific data underpinning decisions is not easily available online. The Government have done very well on this in the last few months, but does he agree that, further to making this data readily available, honesty about the uncertainty contained in the data is key to maintaining public trust?
Mr Wragg
My hon. Friend highlights an important point of our report, which is the need to be clear, open and honest about uncertainties. We can all be guilty of wishing to have answers to every single question—perhaps like me at the moment—but in being able to express uncertainty and show that candour, public trust is enhanced.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
I have met hospitality and creative arts businesses in Luton South to discuss how the pandemic has impacted their operations. Many were frustrated that the Government were not publishing the information being used, by whom it was being used and how it was being used to inform decisions that placed restrictions on their operations. This damaged their trust in Government decision making. Does the Chair of the Committee agree that the timely publication of all the data used to make decisions on the road map and restrictions, along with clear reasons why, will help to rebuild trust with businesses and enable them to better plan their transition out of restrictions?
Mr Wragg
I thank the hon. Lady for her hard work on the Committee and particularly on this report. She will be aware of a case that is possibly going before the courts on that matter, which is to do with the opening on 12 April of non-essential retail, but not of hospitality. I agree with the thrust of her question, and I suggest that the Government publish the evidence that hospitality venues are not covid-secure, given that many have spent many thousands of pounds in making themselves so.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) [V]
I welcome this report and the excellent work done by my hon. Friend. As someone who studied mathematics at university, I know that evidence-based decision making is always the right thing. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he agrees that businesses such as pubs up and down my constituency of South West Herts, including the Penn, the Akeman in Tring and the Greyhound in Aldbury, deserve the evidence and rationale for why they are not able to reopen yet, despite the significant costly measures they have put in place?
Mr Wragg
I certainly thank my hon. Friend, and I take his question as an early invitation to visit those excellent establishments with him when restrictions and time allow. From the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), he will know that I have expressed the view that that data and the justification should be published if those excellent hostelries cannot reopen on 12 April.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
I am not a member of the Committee, but I commend the Chair and all the members and staff of the Committee for this very thorough report.
The Chair of the Committee has called for a strengthening of the ministerial code. In paragraph 98 of the report, there is a very serious charge that a senior member of the Cabinet has been contemptuous of Parliament through their unwillingness to co-operate with this inquiry. Has the Committee considered whether the arrangements for enforcing the ministerial code are fit for purpose? For example, has the hon. Gentleman considered the practice in the Scottish Parliament by which the Parliament can consider a motion of no confidence in individual Ministers as well as in the Government as a whole? Does he believe that it would be beneficial to introduce that in the United Kingdom Parliament?
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement, and I add my thanks to the staff who helped to prepare this report. The report acknowledges that the presentation of data has improved, but does my hon. Friend agree that there is much more work for the Government to do in this area, and that that improvement will not only improve confidence in the data itself but is critical to improving confidence in future Government decisions that are data-based?
Mr Wragg
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and, indeed, for his work on the Committee; I have had the pleasure to serve alongside him. He is entirely right. I think the purpose of his question was to suggest the strengthening of the ministerial code, with the UK Statistics Authority code of practice being integrated with it, so that Ministers who are accountable to this House and, through us, the wider public are always mindful of their duty and obligation to be accurate when they bring data to bear in support of their arguments.
Jeff Smith (Mawnchester, Withington) (Lab) [V]
I, too, thank the Chair and the Committee for their report, and welcome the acknowledgement of the difficulties for the hospitality sector as a result of the failure to provide data in support of measures such as the 10 pm curfew and the substantial meal requirement. I agree with his earlier answer that hospitality needs the data informing the ruling to stay closed. Does he agree that, when the Government carry out their events research programme this summer to decide how nightclubs and festivals can reopen, they must publish the data and the evidence, so that the industry and the public can have confidence in those decisions?
Mr Wragg
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He and I in some respects have always been engaged in the joint endeavour of ensuring that Greater Manchester, throughout the tiering decisions, was dealt with slightly more favourably than it was. But I agree with him on the study to which he refers: all of that evidence and data should be published.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his statement and for the Committee’s work in producing this very alarming report. Does he know why the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did not appear before the Committee during its inquiry, despite the Committee’s expectation that he would do so? What measures will be taken to get commitments from the Government that Ministers will be more open and attend in future?
Does the hon. Gentleman know the reasons behind the Government’s unwillingness to share data with local authorities and local contacts that is reported in his report? Does he agree with my Opposition colleagues that that seriously hindered the ability of local government and local authorities to control the virus? Finally, does he agree that the continued lack of transparency reported here, and of clarity on how the Cabinet Office is making decisions on covid and who is making these decisions, is hindering, not helping, our response to the virus?
Mr Wragg
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. I hope that the publication of this report can serve as a reminder to all Ministers that, when they are invited to attend a Select Committee for a particular inquiry purpose, rather than for a general session, their first response should be to accept that invitation. If there are any problems, they should, of course, use the usual channels to communicate those concerns. But I would hope that some of the stern words in this report will serve as a useful reminder to all Ministers that they have the obligation and are accountable to this House. While we do not have government by Parliament, we have parliamentary government and that should be sufficiently understood by them. In answer to her other questions, particularly on the hesitancy, if I may put it that way, to share all available data at local levels, I am reassured that much of that has been put right, although there may be some more to do. On the latter point, it is a hypothetical question, if I may daringly accuse her of that, but I think that that will undoubtedly have had a negative effect, certainly on the early actions to respond to the pandemic.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee for his statement and welcome his Committee’s report. On the tiering decisions, many times in this Chamber we were pledged a consultation process, but it seems that the word “consultation” was a very loose one. In fact, we were essentially told, without any prior information, without prior engagement and without any of the data. Could he advise us as to the Committee’s view on this process and whether it had any recommendations on how it could be improved, if the need arose?
Mr Wragg
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have always been dubious of the word “consultation” when expressed by anybody as a means of kicking things into the long grass. What is, and what was required was the publication of data thresholds so that areas could judge for themselves objectively why those tiering decisions were necessary. As we go forward with the road map, the publication of the data thresholds that mean that decisions are taken is vital.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for answering the questions of hon. and right hon. Members. We are now going to suspend for three minutes.
Point of Order
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. My point of order relates to the debate held by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) on Tuesday evening on the Scottish civil service. In that debate, he used parliamentary privilege to make a number of points. Privilege obviously allows Members to say a number of things, but it remains important that, when these things are said, what Members say is accurate and correct.
The right hon. Member made three specific points that I would contest. First, he made reference to messages between specific members of SNP staff where Mr Salmond has claimed there was a conspiracy. It is my clear understanding that the Scottish Parliament Committee has received all the communications between the named members of staff because it has used the powers it has to get them, and the Committee has been widely reported as dismissing them as irrelevant and not showing any form of conspiracy.
Secondly, the right hon. Member made reference to a message from an individual in HR claiming interference by the First Minister’s chief of staff, and suggested that this showed the First Minister’s chief of staff had knowledge of complaints against Mr Salmond earlier than she had said. However, Rape Crisis Scotland yesterday issued a statement from the civil servant involved stating that this was
“fundamentally untrue and are being deliberately misrepresented”,
that they had not shared the details of the complaint, the complainer, or who was being complained about, and the chief of staff’s actions were in line with their wishes.
Finally, the right hon. Member claimed that civil servants had deliberately removed a document from the court. This is untrue. Let me quote the Scottish Government statement that was issued last night:
“The assertions made by David Davis are wrong—this document was not withheld, it was provided to the Court on 21 November 2018.”
All that was accidentally redacted was one email address, not a document, and this is clear in the published documents. The right hon. Member is right that the Scottish Parliament Committee needs to get to the truth of this matter in order that mistakes are not repeated and that women are not let down in the future, but clearly this will not happen if serious allegations are made without checking the veracity of them first.
In response to the Scottish Government’s comments last night, the right hon. Member appears to have taken to social media this morning to try to move the goalposts, but he has notably not sought to defend his earlier accusations. He claimed in a newspaper interview yesterday that he was very careful with what he said in the Chamber on Tuesday evening. However, it would appear that he was not quite careful enough. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your advice on what options are available to me and to the right hon. Member to ensure that the parliamentary record can be corrected.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order and for giving the Chair advance notice of it. I know that he also gave the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) notice that he was going to make this point of order. I have listened carefully to what he has had to say, and I am sure that, in saying that, he believes some of the comments made by the right hon. Gentleman were untrue, but he is not saying that anybody has deliberately misled the House and I am grateful for an acknowledgement of that. It is not for me to comment on the accuracy of comments made by the right hon. Gentleman in that Adjournment debate or by the hon. Member in this point of order, but the Speaker has made it absolutely clear that if any Member needs to correct the record, they should do so at the earliest opportunity. The hon. Gentleman has put his points on record, and I think we should leave it there.
Backbench Business
Sri Lanka
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It may be helpful to inform the House that this debate is likely to run until about 3.45 pm.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the reports of a systematic attack in Sri Lanka on democratic governance, the rule of law and human rights including renewed discrimination against the Tamil and Muslim communities; is profoundly concerned that the Sri Lankan Government has refused to investigate accusations of war crimes including by key members of the current government and has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1; welcomes the significant leadership role played by successive UK Governments at the Human Rights Council and urges the Government to provide clear policy direction and leadership to ensure a new substantive resolution is passed at the upcoming Council session in March 2021 that will enable continued monitoring by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and mandate a mechanism to gather, preserve and analyse evidence of violations for future investigations and prosecutions; and calls upon the Government to develop a consistent and coherent policy to assist the Sri Lankan people through its trade, investment and aid programmes, and in its diplomatic and military relations.
I begin by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for approving this debate and the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for co-sponsoring it. I proudly declare my interest as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Tamils. For 12 long years since the end of the Sri Lankan civil war, I have stood alongside my Tamil constituents on the road to truth, justice and accountability. Those 12 years have presented them with so many challenges, so little progress and so much pain. The images of the final days of the civil war are scarred on my memory. No one who saw them could possibly forget them, and the mass violation of human rights left a stain of injustice on Sri Lanka. The world looked away, but today we will not.
I shall introduce today’s debate by running through a decade-long quest for justice. I will continue with the last UN Human Rights Council resolution on Sri Lanka—a resolution that the country itself disappointingly withdrew from—and I will finish by highlighting the urgent need to strengthen the new resolution on the table in Geneva, because the measure of success for global Britain comes not just in rhetoric but in the actions that we take on the international stage, particularly in the face of international justice.
But first, the history. In 2009, in the final few months of Sri Lanka’s civil war, tens of thousands of civilians lost their lives. We all remember the horror of the Mullivaikkal massacre, the most recent peak of genocidal killings against the Tamil people committed by the Sri Lankan state. The current Prime Minister, Mahinda Rajapaksa, was President and his brother Gotabaya, the current President, was Defence Secretary. They are the present-day link to the atrocities of the past. The bombing of the Government-designated no-fire zone, where Tamil civilians took refuge, is as utterly horrifying today as it was 12 years ago, as are the findings of experts that Government forces even systematically shelled hospitals.
Amnesty International estimates that, since the 1980s, there have been at least 60,000 and as many as 100,000 cases of enforced disappearance in Sri Lanka, the vast majority from the Tamil community. These figures illustrate the scale of the suffering, the uncertainty surrounding the facts and the urgent need for resolution. Members will have heard of the horror of rape, torture and murder used during the civil war, the stories of the mass violation of women’s rights—stories that brought the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women to urge investigations into sexual violence. They are stories we could never forget, but, to this day, no one has been held accountable for international crimes that have led many to accuse the Sri Lankan Government of genocide against the Tamil community.
The pursuit of justice must now move decisively forward with more sincerity from the international community. The Human Rights Council meeting happening now provides the perfect opportunity. Before turning to today’s resolution, it is important to consider the resolution that came before. Passed in 2015, with the consensus of Sri Lanka, it promised the establishment of a process of justice, accountability, reform and reconciliation, but six years on, Sri Lanka has made it clear that it has absolutely no intention of pursuing prosecutions or legal redress for war crimes. Its withdrawal from the process altogether could not have spelled this out more clearly. The little progress made has been rolled right back. The ongoing Human Rights Council meeting is our chance to finally secure progress, making it clear that a country cannot fail to fulfil international commitments. To do so risks undermining the credibility of the council as a mechanism of accountability.
I turn to the current resolution, to which the UK is a penholder. Disappointingly, it falls short. First, there is no recommendation to pursue criminal accountability by referral to the International Criminal Court. I could barely believe my eyes reading the Government’s reasoning, citing “insufficient…Security Council support”. Who are we to cast the veto for China or Russia before they have done so themselves? Our role on the international stage must be to send the loudest message that impunity will not be tolerated, not to pre-empt the inaction of other nations.
Secondly, there is a clear need for an international, impartial and independent mechanism to investigate the most serious international crimes. The Minister may point to resolution operative paragraph 6, but can he confirm whether preparation of files to facilitate criminal proceedings will be carried out in accordance with international criminal law standards? The resolution must be absolutely clear about the requirement to establish a IIIM to investigate allegations of war crimes, secure evidence, identify perpetrators and prosecute those responsible. The High Commissioner for Human Rights should continue to monitor and report on human rights in Sri Lanka, providing recommendations to ensure justice for victims and accountability for perpetrators. To rely, as the Foreign Office argues, on the Sri Lankan Government to investigate and prosecute all allegations of gross human rights violations is simply unrealistic, falling far short of our moral responsibility.
Thirdly, why have we not applied sanctions against those credibly accused of gross human rights violations? The US has designated General Silva and his immediate family over his role in extrajudicial killing of Tamils. It is an immediate step that we could take and the Minister cannot point to a veto as an excuse for our inaction. We must ensure a coherent approach to aid, trade and diplomatic and military engagement with Sri Lanka, consistent with the international obligations to human rights. That is long overdue.
Let me turn to the present day. Human rights are under attack in Sri Lanka again, with President Rajapaksa waging a campaign of war. Many of those who face serious wartime abuse allegations have been appointed to senior Government positions. Members of the Rajapaksa family hold nine ministerial roles, including seven Cabinet posts, and manage almost a quarter of the budget. It is total control. President Rajapaksa even pardoned one of the few members of the security forces to be convicted of human rights violations, Sergeant Sunil Ratnayake. That was unsurprising, given his stated determination to protect so-called war heroes during the presidential campaign.
The intimidation is perhaps best demonstrated by the demolition of the Mullivaikkal memorial at Jaffna University in January. That same month, the damning report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights warned that Sri Lanka was on an
“alarming path towards recurrence of grave human rights violations”,
and called on the UN Human Rights Council to take strong action to promote accountability and reconciliation.
This is not just about the human rights of Tamils: the Rajapaksa Government even insisted on the forced cremation of those who died from coronavirus, thereby disregarding the religious beliefs of the Christian and Muslim communities in the country. The ongoing attack on human rights is undeniable. As we are a penholder to the UN resolution, the world will watch closely the strength of our response.
I look around the Chamber and, unless I am mistaken, I cannot see the Foreign Secretary. Perhaps I should not be surprised; he repeatedly declined to meet the APPG for Tamils in the build-up to the UN Human Rights Council meeting. I ask the Minister, with all due respect: where is the Foreign Secretary? The Foreign Secretary under the Labour Government personally flew to Sri Lanka at the end of the civil war to press for a ceasefire. The Foreign Secretary’s absence not only today but in the months leading up to the Human Rights Council meeting will be felt strongly by the Tamil community.
Before I conclude, let me turn to the Tamil community. There are half a million Tamils throughout the UK. They are a hard-working, respectful and dedicated community who have my utmost respect. We owe a debt of thanks to the huge number of Tamils who are working tirelessly on the frontline of our NHS. I sincerely thank them and say loud and clear that however long the road to reconciliation may still be, we will keep fighting for justice and human rights until they are achieved.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling this debate and my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for opening it so well.
As chair of the APPG for Tamils, who are the largest ethnic minority group in Carshalton and Wallington, I am especially pleased to speak in this debate to urge the Government to do all they can to secure peace and accountability in Sri Lanka. I thank colleagues from all parties who have worked with me on the APPG this past year, and the Tamils from Carshalton and Wallington, the United Kingdom and around the world who have been in touch with us and shared their stories.
In the short time I have, which is not nearly enough to cover everything, I will try to get straight to the point. Six years ago, the UK Government paved the way in addressing human rights abuses in Sri Lanka and successfully pushed for UN resolutions to pursue accountability and reconciliation on the island. The Sri Lankan Government at the time signed up to those UN resolutions, but since then Sri Lanka has sadly withdrawn its support for them, and the evidence collected by the APPG in its many evidence sessions this past year have painted a very worrying picture of the situation on the ground.
As the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden outlined, recent infringements on human rights have been on the rise. Those have included the forced cremations of covid-19 victims, regardless of their religious beliefs, causing grief and anguish to Sri Lankan Christians, Muslims and others. The police criminal investigation department has been repeatedly visiting members of advocacy groups on the island who are campaigning for justice following the disappearance of their family members during the war.
The terrorism investigation department has been increasing state surveillance culture, especially in the north, Tamil-populated part of the island. The state-supported demolition of a Tamil memorial monument at Jaffna University and attempts to prevent Tamil memorial events from taking place at all have been causing anguish among the community, occupying private land in the name of security and so much more.
It is clear that there is no scope at the present time for a domestic accountability mechanism in Sri Lanka, so the UK must once again demonstrate its global leadership on this issue and support an international accountability mechanism. The initial zero draft resolution published by the UK in February and presented to the UN Human Rights Council fell well short of providing the action that was needed.
After efforts from Tamils in the UK and abroad, campaign groups and the APPG, subsequent drafts of the resolution have included a requirement to collect evidence on human rights abuses, rather than just looking at what is already there, and acknowledged for the first time that Tamils have been particularly victim to worsening human rights abuses on the island. I welcome those changes, but I urge the FCDO to listen to the calls we are making today.
So much more needs to be done, so we must act now, before the conclusion of the UNHRC session at the end of the month, to ensure that there is a true international accountability mechanism in place. Only then can we hope to bring about truth, justice, reconciliation and accountability for all in Sri Lanka, as well as for the Tamil diaspora—not just in Carshalton and Wallington, but across the world.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) [V]
I start by highlighting my chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka’s relationship with the rest of the world has been strongly shaped since the end of the conflict by allegations that the army committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during the final phase of the civil war.
A UN panel of experts reported in April 2011 that there were credible allegations of those crimes by both Government and Tamil Tiger forces. It remains my opinion that both sides were at fault. However, I regret the Government of Sri Lanka’s decision to withdraw support for UNHRC resolution 30/1 and note that previous domestic initiatives have failed to deliver meaningful accountability. I therefore urge the Sri Lankan Government to engage in a process that has the confidence of all on the island.
But it would be remiss to state that the current Sri Lankan Government have failed to act. The Office on Missing Persons and the Office for Reparations are to be retained and strengthened, so that communities may build trust. It will be good to see reform of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and progress on the release of political prisoners. We must act as a critical friend to the country. We need to help strengthen democratic institutions, and we must trust Sri Lanka to develop its own judicial and non-judicial mechanisms.
Since the end of the conflict, reconciliation has occurred between Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim communities. People are able to live wherever they wish. They benefit from state resources, such as free education and health services. Private land that was occupied by the military has been returned, former conflict areas have been de-mined with assistance from the United Kingdom, and more than 12,000 ex-LTTE— Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam—cadres have been rehabilitated. There is a greater connectivity throughout the island and globally, and all of this has transformed the business sector and the lives of everyone in the country.
But we should remember that resolution and accountability are not a panacea for addressing underlying tensions. Questions about how to address the legacy of the Sri Lankan conflict must be answered: what kind of justice is attainable? How should the victims of violations be treated in the process? What might punishment look like, and how can justice play a constructive role in forging a lasting peace?
Draft legislation for a truth and reconciliation commission had been prepared under the previous Sri Lankan Government, and that could be revisited. If it gains universal support in Sri Lanka, truth seeking among all stakeholders, including the diaspora in many of our communities and constituencies, could make a lasting difference. When these issues have been resolved, a sustainable and acceptable peace will endure. Given the good will between our two countries, I ask the Minister: how can the UK help to facilitate a TRC mechanism that is unique to the needs of Sri Lanka?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It may help those who are participating, both remotely and physically, to know that the wind-ups will begin no later than 3.21 pm. Anne McLaughlin will have six minutes, both Stephen Kinnock and Nigel Adams will have eight minutes, and then we will go back over to Siobhain McDonagh for two minutes at the very end. I hope that is useful.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for her warm and powerful opening of the debate, and for securing it along with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey).
Ambihai Selvakumar, also known lovingly as Ambi, is a director of the International Centre for the Prevention of Genocide. Ambi was on hunger strike recently in Kenton in Brent, in order to highlight the current injustices in Sri Lanka. In her own words, Ambi’s campaign is a demand for
“justice for the genocide of Tamils carried out by the Sri Lankan state.”
Ambi’s protest sparked a number of solidarity hunger strikes across the north-east.
When he gets to his feet, I hope the Minister will address Ambi’s four demands. The first is to recommend to the United Nations Security Council and the UN General Assembly that Sri Lanka be referred to the International Criminal Court and to take steps to effectively investigate charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The second is to establish an international independent investigative mechanism akin to those established for Syria and Myanmar, which mandate that the evidence of international crimes and human rights violations be collected and prepared for criminal prosecutions. She also states that a meaningful independent investigation must also have a strict timeframe.
The third recommendation is to mandate the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to appoint a special rapporteur to continue to monitor Sri Lanka for ongoing violations and to have an on-field presence in Sri Lanka. The last recommendation is for a UN-monitored referendum to determine the aspirations of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, on the basis that the north-east of Sri Lanka is the traditional Tamil homeland, and the Tamils have a right to self-determination. I hope that the Minister will address Ambi’s demands when he gets to his feet.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
I declare an interest: in October 2020, the British Tamil Conservatives made a donation to the Harlow Constituency Conservative Association.
It is estimated that between 40,000 and 70,000 civilians were killed in the final five months of the Sri Lankan conflict. At the end of the war, in 2009, some 280,000 Tamils remained incarcerated for years in camps surrounded by barbed wire, with thousands of enforced or involuntarily disappearances. Their relatives continue to search for their whereabouts and for justice. Twelve years on from the end of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka, little progress has been made to secure justice and autonomy for the Tamil community. Still there is no real accountability.
The Sri Lankan state continues to target the Tamil people in all aspects of their lives through surveillance, denying them their livelihoods, physical security, education, economic security, culture, healthcare, freedom of expression and freedom of worship. In February, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, issued a report expressing deep concern at the situation in Sri Lanka. She said that there are
“clear early warning signs of a deteriorating human rights situation and a significantly heightened risk of future violations”.
What action are the Government taking to prevent future cycles of violence and to promote autonomy for the Tamil community in Sri Lanka, as forecast in the latest UN report? In 2014, the UK led the international efforts that successfully passed a key resolution in the UN Human Rights Council to promote accountability, justice and reconciliation. In 2015, Sri Lanka agreed to co-sponsor a resolution to promote accountability, justice and reconciliation, but despite that pledge and repeated extensions to their deadlines by the UN Human Rights Council members, successive Sri Lankan Governments have delayed and obfuscated at every turn. In 2019 Sri Lanka unilaterally withdrew from the resolution, walking away from its international obligations. The Sri Lankan Government have repeatedly reneged on their pledges to investigate and prosecute wartime atrocity crimes.
Now is the time for strong international action, led by the UK once again, to secure justice for the Tamil community, recognition of the genocide and a proper accountability mechanism. In February, tens of thousands of people joined one of the largest rallies in the Tamil homeland since the end of armed conflict in 2009. They marched for five days, from the east to the north of the island, calling for justice. That same month, 500 British Tamil organisations wrote to our Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, seeking an independent mechanism for evidence collection and the referral of Sri Lanka to the International Criminal Court.
Twelve long years have passed. I urge the Minister to listen to the Tamil community here in the UK and in Sri Lanka, to recognise the genocide, secure justice for the Tamil community by taking on board the recommendation of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and refer Sri Lanka to the International Criminal Court.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for leading this debate. I am proud to have worked with her for many years on the APPG, standing up for justice and human rights for Tamil people. Over those years, we witnessed time and again Tamil people being harmed by the Sri Lankan Government and let down by the international community.
Human rights are again under attack in Sri Lanka. Recent reports from numerous human rights organisations, as well as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, paint a disturbing picture. From the appalling treatment of Sri Lanka’s Muslim and Christian communities during covid, when the Sri Lankan Government for months prevented burials of their dead in the traditional manner, to the continuing human rights abuses against the Tamil population across the island, things are getting worse, as the international community wrings its hands.
It is clear that domestic mechanisms for accountability in Sri Lanka have failed again in recent years; they cannot be relied on. An international mechanism has always been needed to enable allegations of genocide, war crimes and human rights abuses to be properly examined and investigated. Many of us had campaigned for such a mechanism for nearly 12 years since the end of the civil war. Eventually, at the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Sri Lankan Government signed up to a mechanism, albeit one involving significant compromise by those of us who felt it did not go far enough, and who did not trust the Sri Lankan Government to deliver.
Sadly, time has proven us right. The Sri Lankans did not deliver on any of the promises made to the international community and then, last March, walked away totally. It is clear that the Sri Lankan Government will continue to deny, to delay and to evade. That is why we urgently need a new international solution.
The 46th session of the UN Human Rights Council is currently under way, giving the UK the opportunity to demand accountability in Sri Lanka, but regrettably the draft resolution on Sri Lanka totally fails to rise to the challenge, even though the UK is a leader of the core group. As it stands, the draft resolution is too vague and lacks a robust commitment to international accountability mechanisms. Section 6 is simply far too weak. That is why Liberal Democrats continue to call on the UK Government to work with international partners to ensure a proper international, independent investigative mechanism to establish what is happening in Sri Lanka. There must be a robust international mechanism that ensures that evidence can be collected and files can be prepared for prosecution.
The British Tamil community is growing frustrated at the lack of meaningful progress in finding justice, and I share that frustration. It is time for the UK to undertake bilateral actions to push for accountability. I have long called for an end to arms exports to Sri Lanka. For Sri Lanka to be listed as a human rights priority country in the Foreign Office’s own recent annual human rights report is preposterous, and arms exports are still not banned. The Government should look at Magnitsky-style sanctions against individuals involved in perpetrating human rights abuses.
The truth is that Sri Lanka is part of the global struggle between the US and China. It is part of the geopolitics of our world, and it is time that democratic countries worked together to support the democratic and human rights of the Tamil people and stopped allowing the Sri Lankan Government to become increasingly under the influence of Beijing. It is time we stood up for the human rights of the Tamil people.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding a visit I made almost exactly a year ago to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva to make the case for justice for the Tamil people.
Terrible crimes were committed during the conflict in Sri Lanka. Over a decade later, as we have heard today, human rights abuses against Tamils persist. In a deeply worrying report in January, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, highlights
“the accelerating militarisation of civilian governmental functions, reversal of important constitutional safeguards, political obstruction of accountability, exclusionary rhetoric, intimidation of civil society”.
Domestic initiatives to secure accountability for war crimes have failed to produce results, and Ms Bachelet fears that this entrenched impunity could contribute to past crimes being repeated. Not one of the individual cases identified by the UN as emblematic has led to a successful prosecution. In one of the few cases where a member of the military was convicted for murdering a Tamil, President Rajapaksa chose to issue a pardon. Some of those implicated in war crimes have even been appointed to senior positions. More than 40 civil society institutions have reported harassment and surveillance. Reporters Without Borders points to “an alarming resurgence” in attacks on Tamil journalists. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights continues to receive credible allegations of abductions, torture and gender-based violence by security forces. The Prevention of Terrorism Act is still used to detain people, years after the Sri Lankan state promised to repeal it.
Driven forward by David Cameron’s Government after his historic visit to Jaffna—the first by a major world leader—much hope centred on UNHRC resolutions 30/1 and 40/1. That Conservative-led Government played a crucial role in securing those very significant resolutions. Ministers and officials under this present Conservative Government continue to lead efforts to secure a tough new resolution at the UNHRC session under way as we speak in Geneva. Welcome progress has been made on that resolution, but the international community needs to match words with deeds. If it does not, this new resolution could run into the sand, like the previous ones.
I call on the Minister today; it is time for the UK Government to use their Magnitsky sanctions regime to target the men the UN believes are culpable for the atrocities that took place during the Sri Lankan civil war. That is one of the key asks of my British Tamil constituents. I believe that could finally help break the deadlock and open the way for justice for Tamils and a better future for Sri Lanka.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I express my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and all hon. Members involved for ensuring that time is given to this very important debate.
Many people in my Slough constituency have a direct interest in reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka because of their own links to the nation, because they have friends and family there or because they are concerned about human rights. I had the pleasure of visiting this beautiful country and therefore appreciate fully the huge potential it has to succeed and prosper on the global stage. However, since the end of the tragic civil war in 2009, there has, sadly, not been the construction of robust human rights institutions and legal frameworks needed. Attempts at truth and reconciliation have been unsatisfactory, especially the withdrawal by the Sri Lankan Government from UNHRC resolution 30/1. There must be commitment on all sides to transparency, honesty and a willingness to show contrition.
The Tamil community, victims of violence and their families must feel that their voices are being heard. This has not, sadly, been the case thus far in Sri Lanka. In the limited time available and without repeating what other hon. Members have mentioned, I want to address one very specific abuse of human rights. It is an issue of huge concern to Sri Lankan Muslims, Christians and other faith communities, and one which I raised earlier this month with the Minister for Asia—the forced cremation of those who have died from coronavirus.
As the House will know, cremation of a human body is forbidden in some religions, including Islam. The Holy Koran sanctifies the human body as made by God and forbids cremation because it contends that human remains must return to the earth. However, widespread reports indicate that the Sri Lankan authorities have been cremating all covid-19 victims, regardless of religion. The Sri Lankan Government’s chief epidemiologist claimed that burials would “contaminate ground drinking water”. There is absolutely no medical or scientific basis for this. The World Health Organisation has made it clear that human remains can be safely buried without risk of spreading covid-19 and across the world, including right here in the UK, countries have safely buried the bodies of those who, tragically, have died from this virus.
While reports indicate that these measures are being reversed, albeit not to full satisfaction yet, this has been seen by many in the broader context of the oppression of minorities in Sri Lanka, including Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Tamils and others. From listening to constituents, especially those worshipping at the Masjid al-Jannah, Slough, and the Council of Sri Lankan Muslim Organisations UK, as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Sri Lankan Muslims, I appreciate their deep pain and legitimate concerns.
When the war ended after 25 years of death and destruction, we had hope for a lasting peace for every citizen of Sri Lanka. We had hope for the rule of law and universal human rights. Recent events show that we still have a long way to go, and our UK Government must step up to the plate on the international stage and impress upon the Sri Lankan Government the need to respect universal human rights and the critical need to follow the path of accountability, justice and reconciliation.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on leading the debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), with whose remarks I agree wholeheartedly. I declare my interest as an officer of both the all-party parliamentary groups on Tamils and on Sri Lanka, and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Council of Sri Lankan Muslim Organisations UK.
The reality is that Sri Lanka was blighted and torn apart by a terrible, bloody civil war. Twelve years on from it ending, there are still many people who are unaccounted for. We do not know what happened to them: whether they were killed, they are in graves somewhere or they dispersed around the world. Nine years ago, I joined others in visiting Sri Lanka, ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, and I saw at first hand the work that was being done in Jaffna. That heralded the visit by former Prime Minister David Cameron, which was a deeply historic visit. I saw at first hand the mine clearances going on and also the clearance of areas for fishing, so that the Tamil people could return to being able to farm and to fish for their own population and for exports.
My constituent, Ambihai Selvakumar, who has been referred to earlier, lives in Kenton in Harrow and has been on hunger strike in her bid to seek justice for the Tamil people. I hope that her campaign will be successful, but I caution her that her life is more important at the moment than ensuring that we get the British Government and others around the world to shift their views.
I commend the Amnesty International report, which highlights the abuses that minority religions experience in Sri Lanka. I commend as well the report by Real Other, which put together the position in Sri Lanka. It took 32 days writing the report and it draws attention not just to the forced cremation issues, but to the other suffering that the Muslim minority are experiencing in Sri Lanka right now. We should remember that all sorts of atrocities are being inflicted on the minority Muslims across Sri Lanka.
The reality is that deeply religious persecution is going on in Sri Lanka, where there is a big majority of Buddhists against all the minority religions. Recently, I led a virtual delegation to the UNHRC on behalf of COSMOS and drew to the council’s attention the atrocities being visited on the Muslim minority in Sri Lanka. It is key that the resolutions of the Human Rights Council are strengthened. When my hon. Friend the Minister rises, I urge him to give a deep commitment to ensuring that we act as a country to strengthen the resolutions and to make people, particularly the leadership in Sri Lanka, face up to their responsibilities and ensure that religious persecution ends and that minority rights are protected. After all, that is one of our fundamental areas of international concern and I hope that we will be leading the way rather than following.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, let me congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on setting the scene so well and with such passion. I applaud her commitment to the cause.
I register my interest as chair of the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief. I am sure that I speak for all members of that group when I stress the concern that we feel about the Sri Lankan Government’s withdrawal from their commitment to reconciliation, accountability and human rights.
I am also very concerned about the treatment of religious or belief communities in Sri Lanka. The UN special rapporteur for freedom of religion or belief, Dr Ahmed Shaheed, visited Sri Lanka and noted the frequent reports of acts of intolerance and the failure of the state to protect individuals and communities targeted by such hostility. Dr Shaheed also said that the Muslim communities and new Christian churches faced harassment and assaults that include interruption and damage to places of worship, physical assault on clergy, intimidation, mob violence, restricting the use of places of worship, the obstruction of religious rights, incitement to violence and many, many other acts of intolerance. Indeed, since the beginning of 2015 to the end of June 2019, the National Christian Evangelical Alliance of Sri Lanka has documented an estimated 387 attacks or violations targeting Christians specifically.
When it comes to Muslims in Sri Lanka, according to CSW, religious intolerance towards that community predates the 2019 Easter bombings. Many propagators of hate speech towards Muslims play on the economic factors. Anti-Muslim rumours are also a regular feature of life on Sri Lankan social media.
Since the bombings, Sri Lankan Muslims have faced an upsurge in violations of their basic rights, as well as assaults and, indeed, other abuse. This lack of accountability that abusers and perpetrators of violence face in Sri Lanka has been raised by many different communities to the special rapporteur. The authorities have shown an unwillingness to protect communities against threats and acts of violence. We must also look at the legal basis of all this, as the Sri Lankan Government constitution declares:
“Buddhism shall be given the foremost place by the State.”
In 2003, a Supreme Court ruling determined that the state was constitutionally required to protect only Buddhism. This gross violation of human rights puts into law the Government’s refusal to treat all religious or belief communities fairly. They should all be treated the same.
Sri Lanka is also not responsive to violence and abuse against women. Women who experience religious hostility, including violence, displacement and stereotyping, do not receive attention or redress. Women also experience gender-specific hate speech and human rights violations. Moreover, women’s human rights activists appear to be at risk from fundamentalist members of their own religious communities.
Like others, I am concerned about the Government forcing cremation on Muslims, Christians and those of other ethnic groups. I believe that is against the human rights of every member of those religions. It is based on absolutely no scientific and medical evidence, and it is a cause of great concern.
I want those in a position of power to be made accountable for their war crimes by being brought to court and having their assets taken away, and through travel bans. The influence of hate speech, legal discrimination and impunity for violent actors will serve only to cause more conflict and violence in Sri Lanka in the long run.
I always like to quote a Scripture text. I do that in all these debates because it is important to do so. Galatians chapter 6, verse 2 urges this of every one of us:
“Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.”
I believe that the people of Sri Lanka are crying out for that very help. I urge the Minister, for the sake of every community in Sri Lanka, to use all channels available to him to encourage his Sri Lankan counterparts to commit to UN Human Rights Council resolution 30/1 and to the protection of freedom of religion or belief for all. We are here to speak up for those who have no voice.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) [V]
I congratulate not just the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) but a collection of near neighbours of mine to the north on securing this debate.
I have a vivid memory of being in Sri Lanka a few years ago as war planes passed overhead, heading in the direction of the Tamil areas of the country. That was a very stark reminder of the turmoil that that country has experienced. Although I am in no doubt that there were sometimes dreadful deeds on both sides of the civil war, it is the plight of the Tamil community in particular that rightly attracts international concern. I remember that concern taking David Cameron to Jaffna when he was Prime Minister, and it is rightly shared by politicians across the House today.
There can be no winners from the racial strife that continues to dog Sri Lanka; nor is it easy to see how that strife can end without accountability for what happened and genuine efforts for reconciliation between the two communities. I know from my constituency and the Tamil community that lives and worships here how strong the sense of resentment and anger still is among that community, and how real and strong the concerns are for surviving relatives still in Sri Lanka. Many of my constituents lost relatives during the civil war, and many still fear for relatives in today’s Sri Lanka, where it is clear that pressures on the Tamil community have not gone away. It is a tragedy.
I also represent members of the Sinhalese community, who live and work in my constituency and play an important part, for example, in our NHS. Those communities should be able, back in Sri Lanka, to find a way of living alongside each other in peace and friendship. Unless that can eventually happen, there will be no long-term stability for the country. I welcome the UK’s move to lead the UNHRC resolution on Sri Lanka, which would provide a framework for continued international engagement on human rights and post-conflict accountability. It calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to investigate and prosecute all allegations of gross human rights violations and serious violations of international law. It highlights concerns about the human rights situation, including the protection of Tamils. Those things are the minimum necessary to start Sri Lanka back on the road to justice and stability.
We have heard quite a bit this afternoon about the hunger strike by Ms Selvakumar here in the UK to highlight the need for action in Sri Lanka. Whether or not we support the approach that she took—I happen to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about the importance of her life—the fact that she chose to do that serves to underline the frustration of the Tamil community about how much still has to be done.
It is my hope that the Sri Lankan Government are listening to this debate and the cross-party contributions, because this is an issue that unites Members on both sides of the House. I hope they will be provoked to think about their future and what is in the interest of their country. In the end, no Government succeed by failing to respect the rights of all their citizens. In the end, the damage to their international reputation bleeds through to their economy and all other aspects of their interaction with the world.
It really is time now for the Government in Colombo to act in their national interest, to recognise the deep international concern about what has happened and what is still happening, and to put things right once and for all. Unless there is justice in Sri Lanka for everyone, and justice for all members of the Tamil community, that potentially great country will never in reality be able to fulfil its potential; and without justice, its reputation in the world will remain seriously tarnished.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for securing this debate, which is so important to so many people in Ilford—both north and south.
It is now 12 years since the end of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka, and the latest UN report on the country’s human rights situation paints an extremely worrying picture. Since 2019, the situation in Sri Lanka has rapidly deteriorated to widespread reports of torture and oppression, the reintroduction of the death penalty for certain drug offences, antagonistic behaviour such as the demolition of the Mullivaikkal memorial at the University of Jaffna, and the appointment of military officials such as General Silva to positions of authority. This is all deeply troubling to people across Ilford.
In 2015, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights completed a thorough investigation into the abuses by all parties in the Sri Lankan armed conflict, mandated by UN Human Rights Council resolution. It found strong and corroborated evidence that the 58th Division, led by Shavendra Silva, had extrajudicially executed surrendering soldiers and shelled marked civilian hospitals. The Sri Lankan Government recently passed the 20th amendment to the constitution, which is seen by many as a significant challenge to democratic governance. The amendment, which has been opposed by civil society and religious leaders, removes all checks on the power of the executive President. Campaign groups say that this also further undermines the judiciary’s independence by allowing the President complete control of senior judicial appointments. In the UN Human Rights Commissioner’s latest report, she said that she is
“deeply concerned about the increased use of ethno-nationalistic and majoritarian rhetoric and symbols by the President and other senior Government figures”,
and warned of a return to violence. She also called for a referral to the International Criminal Court and targeted sanctions against Sri Lankan officials found in contravention of human rights.
Despite these troubling reports, the UK Government have recently provided several million pounds in security assistance to Sri Lanka, to aid training and capacity building of the Sri Lankan police and security forces. In 2019, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office announced another three-year programme under its conflict, stability and security fund, totalling £3 million; this would include supporting police development and strengthening the defence relationship. I urge the Government, as I previously have in this House, to publish the overseas security and justice assistance assessment of the financial support for activities under this programme, because I and the people of Ilford South want to be confident that we are not supporting human rights violations.
Let us be clear: the Labour party is committed to defending the rule of law and human rights across the world. It is troubling that the Foreign Secretary was recently recorded saying that the UK could pursue trade deals with Governments who commit human rights abuses. Does that include the Sri Lankan Government? It is deeply concerning that the Government are yet to implement Magnitsky sanctions against members of the Sri Lankan Government who are found to be complicit in serious human rights abuses, and makes the UK an outlier among its allies.
In February 2020, the US State Department designated General Silva under the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2020, banning him and his immediate family from entry into the United States. Various civil rights groups and NGOs have expressed their concerns that £6.3 million of UK taxpayers’ money has recently been spent on supporting security reform in Sri Lanka. This has only enabled Sri Lankan security forces to advance antagonistic activities, including accelerated destruction of places of worship and cultural heritage, and, as I have already mentioned, the terrible events at the memorial at the University of Jaffna. Indeed, there are further reports, widely, of torture and oppression by state actors.
Thousands of members of the Sri Lankan Tamil community in my constituency are deeply concerned about this. They want to see this Government put human rights at the centre of our foreign policy and any future dealings with the Sri Lankan Government, working towards a political solution that includes the self-determination of the Tamil people on the island of Sri Lanka.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this debate and on her work in raising this matter both in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall debates. It is a pleasure to be able to take part. I also associate myself with the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) in relation to the Magnitsky Act and making sure that we use its full potential to ensure that we can bring to justice people who are committing human rights violations. As ever, it is a pleasure to be in the same debate as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I appreciate what he said.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative, I would like to address how we could use the PSVI to tackle some of the human rights violations and abuses that have been identified by so many Members. As many have said, the progress that has been made since 2009 has been incredibly limited. In fact, the Sri Lankan Government’s decision to reverse their position is of grave concern.
In recent weeks and months, we have heard the Foreign Secretary talk about the need for the UNHCR to restore its reputation to make sure that it acts on human rights violations. I would say that we, too, can do well to listen to that advice. The international community, at a point at which it is fractured and divided, could again become united and stand together in addressing the violations of human rights of countries around the world, and Sri Lanka would be a good place to start.
A recent report from the UN states that there continue to be
“credible allegations, through well-known human rights organizations, of abductions, torture and sexual violence by Sri Lankan security forces since the adoption of Human Rights Council resolution 30/1, including during the past year”.
The preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative was set up on the basis of helping those who, as its name says, have endured sexual violence in conflict and crisis zones. The UK, when it set it up in 2012 and 2014, was able to engage international co-operation to be able to ensure not only that resolutions in the UN could pass, but that documentation could be provided of crimes that are going on across the globe, that survivors could be supported, and that potential prosecutions in future years could be delivered. If the organisations that are currently set up are failing to deliver that, I suggest that we push forward to create on our own new international body that can help to document these crimes, support survivors, and lead international prosecutions. Out of every great conflict and crisis that has happened throughout mankind, great new reforming bodies have come, and this should be no exception.
I want to make two final points. First, this year there is the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Rwanda, and, as has always been the case, we should be able to speak truth to our friends. It would be a missed opportunity for us to not speak clearly at the CHOGM about what has happened in Rwanda to ensure that there can be co-operation in order to address the human rights violations that have happened. Secondly, we must make sure that we raise these issues at the G7 in order to provide support for those who have endured human rights violations, and to ensure that the perpetrators are brought to justice and the culture of impunity is shattered. We have an opportunity—I do not believe this to be bravado—to lead the international community to take action to help safeguard human rights and to lead by example, and I hope that we can do so.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
The seriousness and urgency of this debate cannot be overstated. The current presidential Administration of Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and his brother Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa stand accused of multiple historical and ongoing human rights violations. Their Administration continue to prevent any accountability for the Sri Lankan military, many of whose leaders stand credibly accused of innumerable war crimes in the Sri Lankan civil war. These leaders include army commander Shavendra Silva and Secretary of Defence Kamal Gunaratne, who are accused of deliberately shelling hospitals and civilians, involvement in sexual violence, extra-judicial executions and enforced disappearances.
During the civil war, an estimated 100,000 people were forcibly disappeared. These disappearances have affected all communities, but the bulk of the victims were Tamils. Forced disappearances also occurred in Sri Lanka before the war, when hundreds of students in the south of the country were disappeared, as well as in its aftermath. The vast majority of these cases remain unresolved, and attempts by relatives of the victims to attain justice have provoked visceral resistance from the Sri Lankan state.
In February 2017, the relatives of the disappeared in the north and east, mainly Tamil women, began a continuous protest seeking the truth about what happened to their loved ones. At least 78 of the protesters have sadly passed away since the beginning of the protest, without ever learning the truth about what happened to their families. There is, at present, no prospect that these families will ever know real accountability from officials responsible via the domestic justice system in Sri Lanka, the independence of which has been severely compromised by the Rajapaksa Administration.
However, that does not mean we are without options to defend the human rights of Sri Lankan citizens. The US applied sanctions on army commander Silva for his complicity in human rights abuses in February last year. The UK should immediately follow suit, in designating both General Silva and Secretary of Defence Gunaratne on the UK sanctions list.
Furthermore, given the Sri Lankan military’s continued complicity in preventing any real accountability for historical and ongoing crimes against humanity, we should immediately halt UK defence engagement with the Sri Lankan armed forces and withdraw our resident defence adviser in Colombo. That post was established in January 2019,
“to hasten the development of a modern, accountable and human rights compliant military,”
but all the post has created is a legitimisation mechanism for the Sri Lankan military and state.
The UK has a long record of training Sri Lankan military and security forces on human rights issues, but there is no evidence of significant changes in the approach of the military to human rights, nor of effective vetting or accountability in the army for those accused of serious human rights violations. The UK must not remain complicit in these grievous crimes. If our engagement is truly aimed at preventing further human rights violations, we must take real steps to remind the Sri Lankan Government that they cannot expect military engagement and support unless those human rights violations are addressed.
In conclusion, I hope that the UK Government take these considerations on board and act accordingly, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this debate.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I, too, draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Like the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), this time last year, just as the seriousness of the pandemic had become clear in our country and days before formal lockdown was introduced, I was in Geneva, lobbying delegations and missions to the UN Human Rights Council about the need for firm action at UN level as a result of both the failure of the Government of Sri Lanka to honour the existing commitments that had been made and, as we have heard about during the debate, the ongoing human rights abuses in that country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) set out perfectly well both the historical context and the ongoing challenges in the country. I am afraid that it is with a sense of déjà vu that I participate in this afternoon’s debate, because we have been here so many times before, discussing exactly the same issues—the appalling atrocities committed during the civil war; both the literal scars and the emotional scars that survivors of that conflict continue to feel to this very day; the disappearance of families, still unresolved; and the responsibility that rests on the Government of Sri Lanka to promote truth, justice and reconciliation for all the peoples of Sri Lanka.
It had felt that we had begun to make progress. We had seen, through successive UN Human Rights Council resolutions, not just focus from the international community but the Government of Sri Lanka signing up to commitments before the international community. Those included a commitment for international involvement in the investigation and prosecution of allegations of historical war crimes, and a commitment—made before the eyes of the entire international community—to put a stop to ongoing human rights violations.
But what do we see from the report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as from a wide a range of independent international NGOs? We see a picture, described by the UN, of the last 12 months fundamentally changing the environment for advancing reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka: the erosion of democratic checks and balances in the civic space; threats to reverse the limited—I emphasise that word as I thought the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) was far too generous in his assessment—gains in recent years; and the risk of the return to policies and practice that gave rise to the grave violations of the past. Indeed, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden, not only do we have a Government who have withdrawn from the commitments that Sri Lanka made to the international community, but we have back in power the same cast of characters who were responsible for perpetrating human rights abuses during the civil war, and resistance to any sense that they should be accountable for their historical actions and for ongoing human rights violations.
I ask the Minister: what is going to change, beyond the resolution, the lived experience of people in Sri Lanka, and the Tamil community in Sri Lanka and around the world, who are seeking accountability and justice for historical crimes? As we have heard, it is not just the international community—I agree with the arguments made about the importance of CHOGM and the G7—that can take action; we can take bilateral action to apply Magnitsky sanctions against the rogues and criminals who perpetrated human rights abuses. At this point, after many years of campaigning for justice, my Tamil constituents are looking not just for warm words but for action and leadership, which has been missing from the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting): how many more times do we have to be here before we get firm action?
I thank the hon. Members who secured this important debate, and I pay tribute to all my constituents and the community groups who have contacted me to express their views about the deteriorating situation in Sri Lanka. All of them, especially from the Tamil community, have impressed upon me the need for decisive international action merely to secure a peaceful and just future for the country.
These next few days in the run-up to the UN Human Rights Council meeting on Monday are critical to securing a meaningful international intervention that could lead to that better future. That is why I support the call in this debate for urgent action from the highest levels of our Government, in particular the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, to ensure that the resolution is strengthened for Monday and also that the vote is overwhelmingly carried. I urge the Government to draw upon the full range of our diplomatic relationships, especially with our friends in the Commonwealth countries in Africa and Asia.
Many of us have been shocked but not surprised at the latest report in January on the situation in Sri Lanka from the UN Commissioner for Human Rights. It sets out straightforwardly the litany of concerns that our own constituents have drawn to our attention: the failure of the Sri Lankan Government to address past human rights violations; the closing down of the space for independent voices; the intimidation of civil society alongside a deepening attitude of acting with impunity within the Government; a visible and increased militarisation of the civil Administration; and, yes, the rise of ethno-nationalism and hate speech—there clearly has been a concerted and targeted attack on the rights of Tamil and Muslim communities.
I repeat what others have said: the seriousness of these issues means that the UK Government must throw their full diplomatic weight behind the strengthening of the United Nations Council resolution and make sure that we follow it through to implementation. As my hon. Friend for Ilford North said, we should also recognise that the adoption of the resolution does not preclude individual countries like ours from taking additional unilateral action. I believe that this country has a special responsibility for action as a former colonial power. We united the three kingdoms, one of which was a Tamil kingdom, into one country and then left in 1948.
To prove that we are serious about holding the Sri Lankan Government regime to account, the only way is for the UK Government to undertake unilaterally three distinct actions. First, we must ensure that all trade and aid agreements with Sri Lanka are only granted following the full ratification and enactment by the Sri Lankan Government of the UN human rights conventions and the fulfilment of their pledge to scrap the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Secondly, I support all Members who have said that we should use the Magnitsky provisions that we have recently put into legislation to ensure that we take action against those individuals who are accused of gross human rights violations. Finally, we must ensure that we fully fund and support bodies investigating human rights abuses and war crimes and bring on to the agenda the claims of genocide during the war in Sri Lanka.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) [V]
It is an honour to speak in this debate about a situation that should concern all of us, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on leading it.
I have been contacted by a number of my constituents for whom the pain and suffering caused by the civil war in Sri Lanka and the persecution of the Tamil community is still very real. Many of us have been contacted about the hunger strike currently being undertaken by Mrs Selvakumar. The fact that Mrs Selvakumar feels that this is the only way to get her voice heard is deeply saddening.
The move away from the UN Human Rights Council resolution in the past year by the Government of Sri Lanka is very troubling, and the ongoing human rights issues in that country must be a priority for our Government as they focus foreign policy on the Indo-Pacific region. The 30-year civil war between the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam saw continuous and terrible human rights abuses by both parties. When the war ended in 2009, it was hoped that finally Sri Lanka might find peace and the chance to reconcile and heal the divisions that had beset the country since independence. But progress has been slow and halting at best, and since the Sri Lankan Government removed themselves as a co-sponsor from the UNHRC resolution, there have been increasing concerns about their commitment to peace and justice.
Trends emerging in the past year have represented a clear early warning sign of a deteriorating human rights situation in Sri Lanka. We have seen an acceleration of the militarisation of civilian Government functions, the erosion of the independence of the judiciary and key institutions, increasing marginalisation of the Tamil and Muslim communities and even the destruction of a memorial to the victims of the war. There is ongoing impunity and obstruction of accountability for the crimes and human rights violations that have occurred.
Victims and their families are calling out for international accountability, and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has requested that members of the UNHRC co-operate with victims and their representatives to investigate and, indeed, prosecute international crimes committed by all parties in Sri Lanka. Our Government must commit to doing all they can to have these crimes investigated and the perpetrators prosecuted.
The British Government created the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020 in order to prevent the immunity enjoyed by perpetrators of serious human rights abuses. Will the Government commit to using those sanctions to prevent further abuses in Sri Lanka? They have already announced a shift in foreign policy in the Indo-Pacific region, but our foreign policy and trade agreements must not come at the cost of people and their lives. It is imperative that the Government commit to prioritising human rights as a cornerstone of our foreign and trade policy in the region, and I hope they will not put trade and profits before the interests of human lives.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) [V]
I warmly welcome this debate. The resolution to be voted on next week comes at a crucial time. It should make a reference to the International Criminal Court, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) argued so powerfully in opening the debate. The evidence-gathering element is crucial to maintain material for the international accountability which Sri Lanka has resisted for so long but which must come in due course. I welcome the proposed commitment to regular report-backs on the conditions in Sri Lanka.
As others have reminded the House, we now have a UK mechanism for sanctions against those guilty of human rights atrocities; will we sanction those who are guilty in Sri Lanka? The US has rightly designated army commander Shavendra Silva, who has been mentioned already and led the ground assault on the beaches of Mullivaikkal at the end of the civil war, attacking civilians, hospitals, medical staff and no-fire zones; will we now do so too? Kamal Gunaratne, who is now Defence Secretary, led a February 2009 assault, attacking civilian hospitals and food distribution points. He commanded the Joseph army camp, which was notorious for torture after the war. The UN has named him; will we sanction him? Why on earth do we have a resident defence adviser in Colombo, providing training and legitimacy? He has met at least five people who have been credibly accused of mass atrocities. Surely that adviser must now be withdrawn.
Before the 2019 Sri Lanka election, the Government there paid lip service to the Human Rights Council resolution that they co-sponsored with the UK after David Cameron visited as Prime Minister. The calculation seemed to be that if they paid lip service to engaging, the international community would leave them alone. They were right: there was no serious effort to hold Sri Lanka to account. The new Sri Lankan Government, elected in 2019, includes guilty men, as we have heard. They are no longer pretending; they have simply withdrawn.
Last month, the Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice, which has Tamil, Muslim and Sinhalese support, said that
“respect for the rule of law and human rights has demonstrably diminished”
and that the current Government have
“significantly reversed progress on 15 out of the 25 commitments”
under resolution 30/1
“and halted progress on 7 others.”
The president now controls all senior judicial appointments. In a climate of fear, human rights defenders and victim/survivors are watched and harassed, and human rights lawyers are held without charge. We have been reminded of the presidential pardon for one of the only soldiers ever convicted of a wartime atrocity. Other key cases have collapsed; witnesses and victims are intimidated; senior police officers are taken off investigations; and the former head of the Criminal Investigation Department has been arrested. The president has promoted war criminals; all Government Departments are led by former military commanders; military intelligence officers run covid contact tracing, threatening activists and victims; and, as we have been reminded, Muslims are targeted. The Human Rights Council must pass an ambitious resolution next week.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
As others have alluded to, Sri Lanka is a stunningly beautiful island, but for its Tamil citizens or, increasingly, its Muslim citizens, and certainly for its citizens who are Sinhalese and interested in human rights or are opponents of the Rajapaksa family, it is a very dangerous country.
Many of those who are Tamil who live in my constituency believe that nothing short of a genocide continues to take place against Tamil citizens in Sri Lanka. They believe that Tamil citizens are increasingly viewed by the Sri Lankan Government in apparently the same way as the Chinese Government view the Uyghurs. There is deep frustration with the apparent impunity of the Rajapaksa family and their supporters in respect of either domestic or international accountability. There is anger with the UK Government for their tolerance of that impunity and their complicity, at international level, in thus far failing to get the international community to take action against the Sri Lankan Government. There is also disbelief that Tamil refugees might be returned to a country so obviously ravaged by human rights abuses.
There is among the Tamil community in my constituency a demand, similar to those expressed by others, for Britain to use the powers that it already has at its disposal to hold to account those who are clearly implicated in serious human rights abuses—as alluded to by many Members, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms)—and to take action, as recommended by the UN Commissioner for Human Rights. The Tamil community want Ministers to back a call for Sri Lanka to be referred to the International Criminal Court. A number of Members have referred to the courage of Mrs Ambihai Selvakumar in her recent hunger strike, which, I am pleased to say, for her sake, has ended, but which served to draw international attention to the issues that we are debating today.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) said in her excellent speech, the frustration of the international community and the Tamil community in many of our constituencies dates back to the end of the conflict in 2009, when terrible war crimes were committed against the Tamil community, including civilians and those surrendering at the end of the conflict. No one has ever been held accountable for those crimes. I strongly support the call by Michelle Bachelet, echoed by my hon. Friends today, for Britain to use the Magnitsky sanctions that it does have available to it against Shavendra Silva and Kamal Gunaratne.
In the short time that I have left, I also want to praise the recent Amnesty International report and note the important contribution from Freedom from Torture urging the Home Office to take another look, with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, at the country note that it uses to judge whether or not refugees should be returned to Sri Lanka. Clearly, given the scale of torture and other human rights abuses, it would be totally wrong to return people with credible concerns about the situation in Sri Lanka. I look forward to the Minister finally taking some serious action against Sri Lanka.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on a speech that I know will have moved many of my friends here and in Sri Lanka, as it did me. She and others in this debate have been good and consistent friends to those campaigning for truth, justice and accountability in Sri Lanka.
I will not repeat all that we have heard about what happened during the 30 year-long war. Instead, I will focus on what has or has not happened since. It is a crime against humanity that nobody has been found accountable since the war ended 12 years ago. There has been a sleight of hand performance between then and now, with successive Governments promising the international community and their own people that they will do X, Y and Z, then drawing back, then promising again, but at the end of the day progress is never made, accountability never happens, reconciliation is never credibly attempted, and peace never really comes to this beautiful island.
I know exactly how beautiful Sri Lanka and its people are because I lived and worked in Galle on the south coast for a short time during the civil war. I cannot claim to have suffered because of it, but I certainly met many people who were suffering and heard stories and rumours of what was going on at the time. It was in the years afterwards, however, when I returned just after the war and was finally able to travel to the north and on two further visits, that I heard at first hand what had happened. People were still frightened. In fact, one man gave me a copy of the book that he had written about his account of abuses against the Tamil community. He was so afraid of what might happen to me, should I be caught reading it, that he removed the cover and replaced it with another.
It was on those visits that I made in the years after the war that I got a clearer picture of what had happened, and it was from my constituents as a Member of the Scottish Parliament from 2009 to 2011, from friends who stayed on to help rebuild Sri Lanka and from the people in Sri Lanka I have kept in touch with for the last 13 years that I got to understand more about what happened—about the internally displaced people camps, the missing people, the torture, the sexual violence and the shelling of so-called no-fire zones.
The reason for today’s debate is to urge the UK Government to do more. The Sirisena Government of 2015, about whom I was somewhat cynical, did co-sponsor the UN Human Rights Council resolution, and it was hoped that this would encourage further investigations into civil war crimes. To an extent it did, in that it established institutions with the functions of addressing the impact of the war, but not much more happened and the operation of these institutions has been hampered by successive Governments.
I will also acknowledge that the UK Government have played a vital role as leaders of the core group on Sri Lanka within the Human Rights Council, but it is clear now in which direction the Sri Lankan Government are heading, and the UK Government must step up their commitment to reconciliation, accountability and human rights. Separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary have been grossly undermined by amendments to the constitution. I believe the 20th amendment, which removes almost every check on the executive powers of the President, to be the most significant signal that there is no respect for the rule of law. Donald Trump is an amateur compared with this guy.
The new Government are led by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who was the Defence Secretary in the final throes of the war. The President’s brother, Mahinda Rajapaksa, the President at the time of the civil war, has been appointed Prime Minister, and we have heard about the nine other family members holding senior positions in that Government. The Rajapaksa brothers are credibly accused of a host of crimes during the war, and of violating international humanitarian and human rights law, yet there they are, President and Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, with all the checks and balances removed. They have consistently blocked, undermined and obstructed investigations and court cases. The missing are still missing. As we have heard, the President recently pardoned a soldier—one of the few ever to be tried, let alone found guilty. The soldier was guilty of the killing of eight Tamil civilians, including a five-year-old child and two teenagers. I can only assume that was all part of his promise to end what he calls the
“era of betraying war heroes”.
As an MSP, I met two teenage girls living in Glasgow. They were Tamils who had sought asylum because, as children, they had watched their father shot to death in front of them by a Sri Lankan army soldier. He made them watch as he put a bullet through their dad’s brain. Should that soldier be tried, or should he be hailed as a war hero, while the world looks on, simply shrugging its shoulders?
I back the calls on the UK Government from previous speakers and the Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice, and I will reiterate just a few of those. In terms of trade, Sri Lanka should be removed from enhanced framework level until it meets the conditions set and agreed to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act—an Act that allows arbitrary detention and strips the rights to due process for those detained. Their armed forces need to stop training their army until they satisfy the conditions, set and agreed to, on human rights. The Minister needs to establish a screening policy for diplomatic meetings, so that the UK is no longer giving legitimacy to individuals critically accused of war crimes.
Finally, I would suggest that we engage the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020 to apply sanctions against individuals credibly accused of involvement in mass atrocities. Shavendra Silva would be a start. It is the very least the victims of this war, both living and dead, both here and there, can expect from us.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this vital debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), for Slough (Mr Dhesi), for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) and for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), who made truly powerful, moving contributions to the debate. The really strong showing from the Labour Benches shows the central importance of this issue to our party.
The Labour party puts the rule of law, democracy and universal human rights at the very heart of our foreign policy. We expect those principles to be upheld consistently in every country throughout the world, including Sri Lanka. We will always stand up for the universal rights and freedoms of all citizens when national Governments refuse to live up to their international obligations.
In 2009, in the final few months of Sri Lanka’s long, brutal civil war, tens of thousands of civilians, mostly from the Tamil community, lost their lives. It is a scar on the conscience of the world that no one has been held accountable for those crimes, which include the deliberate shelling of civilian targets, sexual violence, and extrajudicial executions. The shocking lack of accountability for past atrocities is compounded by the fact that the human rights violations in Sri Lanka continue to this day. Respected non-governmental organisation Freedom from Torture has forensically documented more than 300 cases of torture by the Sri Lankan state since the war ended, and it continues to receive referrals for Sri Lankan individuals today.
The people of Sri Lanka, regardless of their ethnicity or religion, deserve justice. Those responsible must be held accountable, and peace and freedom must be secured for future generations. The Labour party is therefore deeply troubled by what has been taking place in Sri Lanka since the election of Gotabaya Rajapaksa in December 2019.
First, he has militarised his Government by appointing former soldiers such as Shavendra Silva and Kamal Gunaratne, who both stand accused of crimes against humanity, to key positions in his Cabinet. Secondly, he has done huge damage to his Government’s credibility in the eyes of the international community by withdrawing from UN Human Rights Council resolution 30/1, which sets out a process for delivering accountability for war crimes. Thirdly, we are profoundly concerned by reports of the forced cremation of victims of covid-19, including those of Muslim and Christian faith, for whom burial rituals and traditions are sacred. The World Health Organisation has issued guidance stating that the burial of covid-19 dead poses no danger to public health.
On the UNHRC resolution, in recent weeks and months I have written to the Minister twice about these issues and made it clear that, as the penholder on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council, the UK has a crucial and unique responsibility to show moral and political leadership in its approach to co-ordinating the international response. The final version of the draft resolution, which is set to replace 30/1, is certainly an improvement on the zero draft. However, we continue to have real concerns about key aspects of it. Therefore, I have the following questions for the Minister.
First, the draft resolution fails to incorporate the recommendations made by the high commissioner in her report of 27 January regarding universal or extraterritorial jurisdiction. We should be supporting the high commissioner’s view that the principles of universal or extraterritorial jurisdiction should apply, and that states should pursue investigations and prosecutions in their national courts. Why have the Government failed to include an explicit commitment to that in the resolution?
Secondly, the suggested evidence-gathering mechanism is clearly a step in the right direction, but it stops short of recommending the establishment of a fully fledged international, independent investigative mechanism. Why have the Government failed to include in their final draft a commitment to IIIM?
Thirdly, it is clear that there is a strong basis for referring a number of senior members of the Sri Lankan military and Government to the International Criminal Court. Why have the Government failed to include such a recommendation in the resolution? We know that two of the permanent members of the UN will likely block such action, but should the position of the Government really be shaped by the veto-wielding intentions of China and Russia?
Fourthly, there is nothing in the resolution about prevention. Why does not the resolution include explicit reference to protecting human rights defenders? Are British diplomats travelling regularly to the north and east of Sri Lanka to assess the situation on the ground?
Fifthly, the draft resolution requests a report on accountability options in 18 months. This is an unacceptably long timeline, given the evidence already available, and it will give the Sri Lankan Government yet more time to obstruct and obfuscate. Why have the Government failed to ensure that the resolution is based on a far shorter report-back timeline of six months, as I recommended in my recent letter to the Minister?
Moving beyond the UN resolution, there are a number of bilateral steps that the Government should be taking. In my 11 December letter to the Minister, I suggested that a number of Sri Lankan officials should be sanctioned under the Government’s global human rights sanctions regime, yet not a single Sri Lankan Government Minister, official or military officer has been designated. Could the Minister please explain why it is taking so long when the evidence is already widely available?
In my letter, I also raised the issue of the UK defence adviser’s engagement with the Sri Lankan military. Since arriving in Colombo in January 2020, he has met at least four senior commanders of the Sri Lankan military who stand accused of gross human rights violations. Could the Minister please explain how the activities of the defence adviser will lead to greater accountability for the Sri Lankan military? Are the UK Government vetting who the adviser meets? Is the adviser’s defence engagement delivering tangible results, or is it simply lending a veneer of legitimacy to a military that is committing human rights abuses?
Thanks to the recent leaking of comments made by the Foreign Secretary, we know that he is perfectly happy to pursue trade deals with Governments who are committing human rights abuses. Are the UK Government pursuing a trade deal with Sri Lanka? Will human rights conditions be applied? As an EU member state, the UK was party to trading arrangements that offered a preferential tariff to Sri Lanka under the general scheme of preferences enhanced framework known as GSP+ because the Sri Lankan Government were supposedly living up to their human rights obligations. Now that the UK has left the EU, will the Government be reassessing their trading relationship with Sri Lanka?
Here’s one for the SNP spokesperson—to be answered at another time, I guess—if she is still tuned in. Police Scotland has made 90 deployments of officers to Sri Lanka over the past 15 years. Have these deployments achieved tangible results, or are they just lending a veneer of credibility? Finally, what assessment has the Minister made of Sri Lankan soldiers continuing to be deployed in UN peacekeeping missions despite the human rights record of the Sri Lankan military?
The integrated review is full of snappy slogans and rhetoric, but all it really achieved was to expose the chasm between the stated ambitions and the actual, tangible actions of this Government. If global Britain is to mean anything, it must surely mean consistently standing up for democracy, for the rule of law and for universal rights and values—not just with words, but with deeds. That must start today, and it must start with Sri Lanka.
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for securing this debate. I pay tribute to her for her work with the APPG. I also pay tribute to the many other Members across the House for their work on this important issue and for the many informed and passionate contributions that we have heard this afternoon. I will try to respond to as many of them as possible in the time I have, but I am conscious that I have to give the hon. Lady a couple of minutes at the end of the debate. The Minister for South Asia—the Minister that the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) wrote to—would have been delighted to take part in this debate, but obviously he sits in the other place so it is my pleasure to respond on his behalf and on behalf of the Government.
Human rights in Sri Lanka are an important issue and a long-standing priority both for the UK Government and for many fellow Members. This debate is timely, coming during the 46th session of the UN Human Rights Council, which began on 22 February. The human rights situation in Sri Lanka and the limited progress on reconciliation and accountability raised by many right hon. and hon. Members are deeply concerning. As the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberavon, pointed out, in February last year the Government of Sri Lanka withdrew their support for the UK-led UN Human Rights Council resolution 30/1 and its successor resolutions 34/1 and 40/1. Those resolutions concerned reconciliation, transitional justice and accountability.
The Sri Lankan Government then announced a domestic mechanism on accountability. As with previous domestic initiatives, however, meaningful progress has yet to be delivered. There have also been a number of setbacks on accountability, including the appointment into Government positions of military figures accused of war crimes, as referenced by hon. Members this afternoon. As the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) pointed out, they also include the presidential pardon of former army sergeant, Sunil Ratnayake, one of the few perpetrators of war crime atrocities to have been convicted in Sri Lanka.
Other worrying human rights developments include the continued harassment and surveillance of minorities and civil society groups, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the increasing role of the military in civilian governance, and a constitutional amendment that has extended Executive control over the judiciary and the independent institutions. As the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) pointed out, the Government’s policy of forcibly cremating those deceased due to covid, which has only recently been reversed, has particularly affected the Muslim and Christian communities. Even now, our understanding is that families face significant restrictions on where and how burials can take place.
The UK Government are deeply concerned by these developments. We have long stood by all the victims of the conflict in Sri Lanka. I was particularly taken by the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), who had very personal recollections of that time. We have condemned LTTE terrorism and worked over many years to achieve post-conflict truth, accountability and transitional justice. Together with our international partners in the Core Group on Sri Lanka, the UK has led successive UN Human Rights Council resolutions on Sri Lanka in 2014, 2015, 2017 and 2019. In February, June and September of last year, we set out our continued support for the UN Human Rights Council framework and our growing concerns about the human rights situation in Core Group statements to the HRC.
Sri Lanka is a human rights priority country for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. In our annual reports, and in Lord Ahmad’s autumn ministerial statement, the Government have highlighted a number of important concerns, which have been highlighted here this afternoon. Accountability and human rights have also been integral to any bilateral discussions we have had with the Government of Sri Lanka. The Foreign Secretary underlined the importance of accountability when he spoke to the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister in May. Lord Ahmad, the Minister for South Asia and the Commonwealth, has also had numerous discussions with the Foreign Minister, most recently in January, and with the Sri Lankan high commissioner here in London.
We welcome the recent reports on Sri Lanka by the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. We agree with the high commissioner that the Human Rights Council must continue to monitor the situation in Sri Lanka very closely and we must continue to press for accountability and reconciliation. Along with our Core Group partners, the UK, as penholder, has presented a new draft resolution on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council. The resolution aims to provide a continued framework for international engagement on human rights in Sri Lanka. The draft calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to make progress on accountability and human rights, and stresses the importance of a comprehensive accountability process for all violations and abuses committed in Sri Lanka. It aims to keep Sri Lanka firmly on the HRC agenda and requests OHCHR reporting on the human rights situation and, importantly, on accountability.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden and the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), have called for an international accountability mechanism —a mechanism to collect and preserve evidence of human rights violations—as part of the resolution. I can confirm that our resolution strengthens the capacity of the OHCHR to collect, consolidate, preserve and analyse evidence. The resolution supports future accountability processes and builds on the investigations conducted under previous HRC resolutions. We are now working hard to build support for our draft, which we hope will be adopted next week.
Regrettably, the Sri Lankan Government have made clear their opposition to further substantive action by the HRC. None the less, we will continue to seek to work constructively with them on these issues. We will underline the importance of accountability and human rights in our dialogue with the Government of Sri Lanka. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Members for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) raised the issue of the hunger strike carried out by Ambihai Selvakumar. We understand that, as has been pointed out, she was able to conclude her hunger strike two days ago. We absolutely recognise the concerns she has raised about the issues faced by the Tamil community in Sri Lanka. We have highlighted these concerns about the lack of progress towards post-conflict accountability and the wider human rights situation.
A number of hon. and right hon. Members raised the question of sanctions. We established the global human rights sanctions regime in July 2020, and in a statement to Parliament, the Foreign Secretary set out the full scope of the new regime without speculating, importantly, on future designations. We continue to consider further designations under this global human rights sanctions regime, and we keep all evidence and potential listings under close review.
I acknowledge and welcome the strength of feeling in the House. We are right to be concerned. We will continue to prioritise international efforts to support accountability and reconsideration at this current session of the Human Rights Council, and we are pushing very hard for our resolution to be adopted next week. I must reiterate that we cannot speculate on future designations under the global human rights sanctions regime.
Finally, I make it clear that we want a positive relationship with Sri Lanka. We share deep historical ties. We work well together on a number of common interests, such as climate change and covid recovery, and we value that partnership, but accountability and human rights must remain high on the agenda—accountability and human rights to provide justice for all the victims of the conflict and the lasting reconciliation and stability that will allow the people of Sri Lanka to prosper.
Siobhain McDonagh
I thank all the hon. and right hon. Members from across the House who have taken part in this debate. Their commitment to the minority community of a small island is very much appreciated, but their interest is because of the hard work of the members of the Tamil community. They simply cannot forget the relatives they no longer have, the relatives who they have no idea where they are, the relatives who were bombed in hospitals and the relatives who were left on beaches having lost their limbs by a Government now led by the same men who did that to members of their family.
This debate is about the credibility of the British Government in taking seriously the loss and distress of a community in this country—half a million who work hard, do their best and contribute greatly to our nation. Are we serious about representing them, or do we believe that Governments who have powerful friends should be allowed to behave as they like?
I suggest that the Government of Sri Lanka only understand very firm action. To rely on that Government to seek out those who committed the atrocities or to take action is simply a fool’s errand, and it has to stop. We have to seriously mean that we will help the Tamils in this country to find their relatives, to know what happened, and to allow their relatives to live in a community where they are able to vote, to take part and to believe that their views are taken seriously.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes with concern the reports of a systematic attack in Sri Lanka on democratic governance, the rule of law and human rights including renewed discrimination against the Tamil and Muslim communities; is profoundly concerned that the Sri Lankan Government has refused to investigate accusations of war crimes including by key members of the current government and has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1; welcomes the significant leadership role played by successive UK Governments at the Human Rights Council and urges the Government to provide clear policy direction and leadership to ensure a new substantive resolution is passed at the upcoming Council session in March 2021 that will enable continued monitoring by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and mandate a mechanism to gather, preserve and analyse evidence of violations for future investigations and prosecutions; and calls upon the Government to develop a consistent and coherent policy to assist the Sri Lankan people through its trade, investment and aid programmes, and in its diplomatic and military relations.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We will suspend very briefly for the cleaning of the Dispatch Boxes.
World Water Day
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered World Water Day 2021.
I thank the co-sponsors of this debate, ahead of World Water Day on 22 March—the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law). It also has the support of the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson). I also thank the many organisations that have campaigned on this important issue over the years—to name just a few, WaterAid, UNICEF, Oxfam and Global Justice Now. UN Water has done important work, as has, more widely, the United Nations. I also pay tribute to We Own It, whose tireless work on water access in this country has drawn attention to the spiralling cost of water to consumers since it was first privatised in England and Wales under Margaret Thatcher’s Government in 1989.
The need for clean, accessible water is universal. It should not be a privilege for countries with the highest GDP or those that benefit from a geographical location that means they are safe from the ravages of climate change. It is a disgrace that almost half the world’s population is without access to clean water. It is even more shocking, given that we are in the midst of a global pandemic and a key factor in halting the spread of covid is people’s ability to wash their hands regularly. Despite that, figures by WaterAid reveal that more than 3 billion people are unable to wash their hands with soap and water at home, half of healthcare facilities in low-income countries lack basic water services, and 60% have no sanitation services at all.
That is set to worsen with the climate emergency, with warmer temperatures, rising sea levels, increased floods, droughts and melting ice affecting the quality and availability of water and sanitation systems. Forecasts show that, by 2040, a quarter of all children worldwide will live in areas with extremely limited water access. Data from Oxfam, which has done so much to help communities gain access to clean water, reveals that 2.4 billion people do not have access to a toilet, while a staggering 4.5 billion people lack safely managed sanitation services.
The lack of access to water is a killer. Figures from the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development show that unsafe water accounts for more than 1.2 million deaths each year. Every minute, a newborn child dies from infection caused by a lack of safe water and an unclean environment. That is backed up by WaterAid’s research, which adds that unclean births caused by limited water supply account for 11% of global maternal mortality, while approximately 20% of all global deaths are due to sepsis, which often arises from contaminated water.
This crisis is being exacerbated by the ongoing pandemic. More than half of all healthcare facilities in low-income countries are operating without access to hand-washing facilities. At present, according to WaterAid, just 5% of climate finance is spent helping countries adapt to climate change. Even less is given to the most vulnerable countries. Less than 1% of total global climate investment goes on basic water infrastructure and services. The climate emergency is the greatest challenge facing our planet, and that approach falls well short of what is urgently required.
Just a week after International Women’s Day, it is worth noting that 80% of people displaced by climate change are women. That means that, in the aftermath of disasters, women are more likely than men to be displaced and become victims of violence. Women are also more affected by droughts and water shortages, and often have to walk even longer distances to collect water. This also has enormous implications for global food production.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is listing some really important interlinkages of how water is vital to achieve all these other important goals. Of course, many of them are the sustainable development goals. Is he worried, as I am, that covid has put back much of our progress on the SDGs—particularly the water and sanitation goal—and that 2030 is looking further off than it did a year and a half ago?
Navendu Mishra
I fully share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the sustainable development goals.
The cost associated with tackling this issue is not prohibitive; far from it. The World Health Organisation and UNICEF estimate that providing water, sanitation and hygiene in 80% of healthcare facilities in low-income countries by 2025 would cost approximately $3.6 billion, of which $1.2 is capital costs. To put that in context, funding the initial infrastructure costs would account for just 6% of the US Government’s $20 billion budget they set aside for global health, and it represents a tiny fraction of the $732 billion the US spends on its military budget each year. And that is just one country.
In the UK, sadly, our funding has often worsened, not improved, access to water when it is linked to projects that privatise services. For example, research by Global Justice Now revealed that, over the past decade, UK aid accelerated the privatisation of public services in the global south. Overseas development aid was invested in for-profit schools, unaffordable private hospitals, water and sanitation privatisation and private sector energy projects.
That approach does long-lasting damage. For example, in the 1980s and 1990s, a wave of privatisation swept across much of the global south, with Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa particularly impacted. Many indebted Governments who turned to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to restructure their debts were subsequently forced to reduce public spending and privatise public services as a condition of future loans. Under dictator Pinochet, Chile enshrined water privatisation in its constitution, and 40 years later it continues to pay the highest rates for water in Latin America.
Despite reassurances from the Prime Minister when it was announced last year that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development would merge, the Government have since shelved their ring-fenced commitment to spend 0.7% of national income on overseas aid, cutting spending to 0.5% despite the Conservative manifesto commitment to maintain the higher target. At the start of the pandemic, DFID announced a £100 million campaign to support better hygiene practices, including access to water. At the time, the Government stated that the programme would work in 37 countries and help implement country-specific activities on safe water and sanitation. Separate funding of £20 million was also made available in a humanitarian support package. All this is now under threat.
In the UK, we are incredibly fortunate to have access to clean, safe water that has been treated and tested to the highest standards. However, in the past three decades, we have also seen the privatised model lead to spiralling costs that are not matched by investment in infrastructure and quality of service. Research by We Own It revealed that between 1989, when the UK water companies were first privatised, and 2016, water bills increased by 40%. According to the Commons Library, there were price hikes of up to 50% in the decade after water and other utility companies were denationalised—this despite UK companies paying billions to shareholders. Indeed, between 2013 and 2017 alone, UK water companies handed out more than £6.5 billion to shareholders, clearly prioritising profit over people.
While the water industry is always quick to argue that the increase in bills since privatisation has been accompanied by investment in infrastructure by companies and improvements in service quality, the reality is that the infrastructure is poorly maintained. That has resulted in the network haemorrhaging water, with more than 3 billion litres lost each day, equal to 53 litres per person, which is 21% of the water taken from the environment each day by water companies. The reality is that it is far more commercially appealing for private companies and their shareholders to buy new and often protected tracts of land to build new reservoirs, rather than fix the existing leaking infrastructure. That has led to parts of London and the south-east facing severe shortages, and responsibility for that must, at least partly, be laid at the door of water companies.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
My hon. Friend is right to point out that Britain is the only country in the world to have dabbled in complete privatisation of water. In places where Labour has maintained power, we have mutualised it and renationalised it. Many customers in Britain will be seeing rising water bills because they have been at home during covid. Does he agree that something the Government could do to help the pound in the pocket of ordinary citizens is bring water back into a mutual, non-profit structure and make sure that the money goes to where it is deserved?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I remind the hon. Member that we are under massive pressure for time, so he should be looking to wind up very soon.
Navendu Mishra
I will, Mr Deputy Speaker. I fully share my hon. Friend’s concerns; his point about water companies going back into public hands is very valid, and I support that.
I will conclude in a moment, but first I would like to talk about the Flint water scandal. Time and again, we have seen that private water companies do not have the consumer’s best interests at heart, and the drive for increasing profit comes at the expense of health and safety. Perhaps the most notable example of that was the Flint water scandal in Michigan, which is one of the worst human-made environmental disasters in US history and a case that has been held up as a symbol of environmental injustice and racism.
In an effort to cut costs with the private water contractor, Veolia, former Governor Rick Snyder took the decision to use Flint river to supply water to the city’s predominantly African-American and economically poor population. The corrosive water, however, was not treated properly—a misstep that freed lead from old plumbing into homes. Despite desperate pleas from residents holding jugs of discoloured water, the Snyder administration and the drinking water regulator took no significant action until a doctor publicly reported elevated lead levels in children 18 months later. In the months and years that followed, 12,000 children were exposed to dangerous levels of lead, while residents experienced rashes and hair loss, and 12 people died from an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease. It is time for private water companies to be prevented from treating our environment like a sewer and finally bring water back into public ownership.
In conclusion, I call on the UK Government to continue to play their part and help alleviate the suffering and harm caused by limited access to clean water. This means ensuring that water, sanitation and hygiene are fully integrated into all health programmes supported by UK aid, as well as using our role as chair of the G7 to bring donors together to make progress towards funding the $1.2 billion that is needed to build the basic infrastructure for water, sanitation and hygiene and health facilities in low-income countries.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
To assist those taking part in the debate, the wind-ups will begin at no later than 4.36 pm with Patricia Gibson for six minutes, then Anna McMorrin at 4.42 pm for eight minutes, then Wendy Morton at 4.50 pm for eight minutes, and then Navendu Mishra will have the last two minutes.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) [V]
World Water Day is an important time to reflect upon the universal value of water and the many obstacles freshwater communities face across the world. Climate change is driving water scarcity across the global south, affecting South and central America, Africa and east Asia, with projections of water shortages reaching extremely dangerous levels over the next 10 years. That is why today’s debate is so important and why it is deeply concerning that the UK Government have substantially cut overseas aid that would help millions of people facing some of the worst droughts, famines and humanitarian crises in recent history.
It must also be noted that water scarcity is intensifying regional conflicts, one example of which is in Jammu and Kashmir, where climate change means natural glaciers are melting, leading to a significant reduction in fresh water supplies. In addition, several rivers that run through the region provide water to two major regional powers, Pakistan and India. India’s recent military occupation of Kashmir was in part driven by concerns over water shortages, and it is clear that the situation in Jammu and Kashmir is part of a water conflict between Pakistan and India with the people of Kashmir caught in the middle, suffering increasing water scarcity as a result. Therefore, it is essential that international organisations work together to solve water scarcity and prevent conflicts from arising. This is why the situation in Jammu and Kashmir is of international significance and why the conflict in the region must be brought to a peaceful and just resolution so that the people of Kashmir, Pakistan and India do not face an escalating humanitarian crisis due to scarcity of water.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
Water is everywhere; after all, our planet is a watery one, with water covering 71% of Earth’s surface. One might wonder why we need to worry about it, but despite our abundance of it our activities to plunder the world’s most precious natural resources give us cause for concern.
World Water Day is all about valuing water, and I rather worry that we take it for granted. All too often we risk denigrating our water supply, harming its sustainability and creating vast amounts of pollution, and the growing threats from climate change will have a significant impact on the availability, quality and quantity of water for our basic human needs.
Water may be all around us, but it is also in us. As you sit there, Madam Deputy Speaker, your body is made up of 60% water; it is rather important in regulating your temperature, transporting nutrients around and helping digestion, not to mention many other bodily functions. Put simply, water is essential to life, because all lifeforms are dependent on it. And as such, Earth is dependent on a stable hydrological cycle that if we do not use it properly threatens our water security.
I have dealt with many water security issues in my constituency. Many of my constituents are farmers—the very people who, arguably, do more than most to manage our precious planet by using it to grow food. Some of my farmers are threatened with their livelihoods for abstracting too much water, despite any convincing or compelling evidence base to support this claim. When these are the very people who create the jobs, the employment and the food that we eat on many of the food shelves around the country, such threats are a worry. Our focus must be on those who truly are harming our planet, not those doing the lion’s share to protect it. I would say to the Environment Agency that revoking water licences on which many businesses depend will have an adverse and permanent effect on the livelihoods and employment of those involved. All decisions must be backed by unequivocal scientific facts. Need I point out that growing the crops that we all eat needs more than anything—yes, that is right—water.
The Government’s 25-year plan, which commits to achieving plentiful clean water, is commended, as is the landmark Environment Bill, but there is much to do. A recent Environmental Audit Committee inquiry learned that only 14% of our rivers are currently achieving good ecological status. Freshwater species are going extinct more rapidly than terrestrial or marine species globally. Almost one third of freshwater biodiversity faces extinction worldwide due to habitat loss, invasive species, pollution and over-harvesting.
This debate nobly aims to raise awareness of water, but, perhaps, when we reach for the taps to make ourselves a cup of tea later today, let us not take it quite for granted. We should think a bit harder about the one in 10 who do not have access to clean water. It is not our gold, diamonds and pearls that are our precious resources, but our life-giver, water.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) [V]
First, let me thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for securing this debate.
Access to clean water for drinking and for sanitation is an inalienable human right. Importantly, though, access to water and sanitation is recognised by the United Nations as a human right, reflecting the fundamental nature of these basics in every person’s life. Lack of access to safe drinking water, water for sanitation and water that is truly affordable has a particularly devastating effect on billions of people on their health, dignity and prosperity, especially in the global south. The markets and the money men think differently, with water joining gold, oil and other commodities being traded on Wall Street, as worries about the uncertainty of its availability in the future rises and therefore its attractiveness to big investors.
Water traded as a commodity is morally reprehensible. While the privateers make a tidy sum, half a million die globally each year because of diarrhoea-related illnesses on the back of drinking contaminated water, and that is just scratching the surface. The water shortage issue is slowly appearing on our media’s agenda, albeit on the back of rich Californians being told that they are not permitted to fill their swimming pools, or, of course, of the hosepipe bans that we have seen issued in recent years across the south of England on the back of protracted droughts. Growing water shortages are every bit linked to the deepening climate emergency as global temperatures continue to rise. By 2040, one in four children worldwide will lack access to clean drinking water. That means that, if they do not perish from diseases first, school days are lost and all human development indices will be down.
I know that we are looking at the global picture today, but nations—be they rich like ours—need to lay down a marker, driving the privateers out of the water markets, and that starts by nationalising our own water supply. Our international development strategy should be focused on helping developing nations to take control or maintain control of their own water supplies that are run in the interests of their own people, not private profit.
In many ways, water is the perfect commodity. It is a fixed, finite resource with a global market that covers every human being on the planet who needs access to it for survival. Most alarming is the emerging view that the resource wars of the future will be fought not on scarce resources like oil, but on water. We only need to look at the recent past for evidence of what could await poorer countries, particularly if right-wing autocrats force their people to abide by World Bank privatisation diktats in exchange for loans. We saw this in Bolivia barely two decades ago, where it even went as far as criminalising the collection of rainwater and violent scenes broke out across the country.
Members of this place should be absolutely committed to this agenda—one that guarantees universal access to clean and safe water for every human being, and a just settlement based on developing countries having the tools at their disposal to oversee their own destiny.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) [V]
World Water Day is about what water means to people, its true value and how we can better protect this vital resource. The issue of water means different things to different people. I acknowledge that, for many in the world, this means access to a safe drinking supply, but today I want to focus on another area. As a former lifeguard and chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on water safety and drowning prevention, the issue that I want to discuss is that of access to water in order to swim.
Our connection to water is as old as humankind. It has even led some, such as Elaine Morgan, to propose in her book “The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis” that humans evolved from creatures in the water. I would claim that we have never left it. Nowadays, it seems that everyone is engaged in wild swimming, but this has not always been the case. In the 19th century, swimming was an exclusive activity restricted to men and access to swimming pools was a luxury limited by class. If women chose to swim in the sea, they had to ensure that no men were around. Even in the 20th century, they could be arrested and convicted if they sought to take a dip in a lake. Amazingly, it was not until the 1930s that women were finally allowed to publicly bathe, so I am sure that we are all very pleased to see that the advancement of women’s rights has progressed, even if it has only been in outdoor swimming.
Outdoor swimming has gained huge popularity in recent years. The debate continues as to whether it is better to swim with or without a wetsuit, but the health benefits and potential for wellness and mindfulness have shown us that this activity improves not only physical health but mental health. But we have a problem here in England. In Scotland, swimmers have a clear right to swim, which goes alongside their right to roam. Scotland allows swimming in any outdoor water. In England and Wales, the law is not so clear. It is legal to swim in any navigable waters, but this means water that is also being used by boats and other watercraft, posing a hazard to those swimming. Access to water becomes fraught with problems around civil trespass, and actually getting in and out of the water. Indeed, the private owners of reservoirs ignore the desire for people to swim, even though they allow activities on their water source.
Today I am calling on the Government to support the Outdoor Swimming Society’s campaign for clearer legal access to water bodies in England and Wales. We did it for access to the countryside; now let us do it for access to waterways.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) on securing this important debate. I agree with every point he made. With climate breakdown threatening to plunge vast swathes of the world into drought and water conflict, it is simply shameful that the Government are cutting overseas aid spending. It signals a worrying retreat from the UK’s long-standing humanitarian commitments, and I urge the Minister responsible to change course. My hon. Friend is quite right to demand action for the 2.2 billion people globally who still lack access to clean drinking water.
World Water Day marks a day dedicated to the sustainable management of water resources, so I also want to discuss the immense challenges facing us at home. It seems inconceivable that Britain, with its rolling green fields and regular rainfall, could ever want for water, but the climate crisis and water wastage could plunge us into a life-threatening water shortage in less than 25 years. Sir James Bevan, head of the Environment Agency, has warned that we are staring into “the jaws of death”—the point at which we will not even have enough water to supply our needs. Urgent action is needed to improve infrastructure and reduce wastage, and that means acknowledging that water is a public good, not a private commodity.
Since the privatisation of water in 1989, the average bill has risen by 40% in real terms, and £57 billion that could have been invested in making much needed internal improvements has been paid out in dividends to private shareholders. We have been left with a system in which almost 3 billion litres of water—approximately the amount consumed by 22 million people—is lost in leaks every day. If Members will forgive my phrasing, privatisation has been a busted flush.
I say to the Government, who have already borrowed so much from my party’s 2019 manifesto, that there is one more Labour policy ripe for the taking: a publicly owned, democratically controlled water system. By at last bringing water back into public ownership, we could slash the average water bill by at least £100 a year and plough profits back into securing water mains and reducing leakage. As part of a wider green industrial revolution, we could create thousands of new, highly skilled jobs in the construction and maintenance of new and improved waterworks.
Public ownership would not just bring benefits to people living in Britain; the conversation about water is a global issue, and the UK must play its part. By developing much needed infrastructure, skills and expertise at home, the UK can play a leading role in assisting those nations most afflicted by water scarcity and those people across the globe deprived of this live-giving resource.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it.
This debate marks international World Water Day, which is on 22 March and is an opportunity to talk about access for all to this necessary resource with a live-giving property—water. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on water, sanitation and hygiene, I am delighted to be able to speak in today’s debate. As hon. Members may be aware, I am unapologetically evangelical about the importance of water, sanitation and hygiene—WASH.
This debate will be warmly welcomed by constituents across the UK who support water projects so generously through organisations such as WaterAid and CAFOD. They get it. They get that we cannot eradicate poverty, we cannot have gender equality and education for all, we cannot tackle climate change, and we cannot achieve peace and security around the world if we do not fund water, sanitation and hygiene. Investment in national public services and water systems is both a high value for money investment and highly valued by the British public.
In my work for WaterAid, Christian Aid and CAFOD, I have seen the transformative impact that having water and sanitation can bring to people’s lives—to whole communities transformed by having water. I have seen women who can now get jobs because they do not have to be off fetching water. I have seen nurses and doctors saying that they are able to do their job—that they are able to save lives now—because they have water facilities in their clinics. But I have also seen the impact of not having water. I have spoken to a mother whose baby died of sepsis, an entirely preventable disease—clean water is necessary for preventing it—that is responsible for an extraordinary one in five global deaths.
Our aid budget simply does not fund WASH projects enough. Just 2% of the UK aid budget is spent on WASH, and even that is under threat, with the aid budget being cut by devastating amounts, from £15 billion to £9 billion this year. I urge the Minister to think WASH in all her planning, budgeting and delivery. I am very disappointed that the integrated review published this week contains almost no mention of water and sanitation, and no recognition of how fundamentally strategic this issue is. Its scale is enormous, and it must be met by equal ambition. We could be showing leadership on this across the world.
Some 2 billion people lack access to safe water for drinking, cooking or personal use, and 55% of the global population still lacks access to safely managed sanitation. One in two healthcare facilities in the least developed countries lacks basic water services. If my local hospital said it had no water, we would close it down. If my son’s school said it had no water, we would not send children to it. We would not say that those were adequate education or healthcare facilities, yet we fund the building of healthcare clinics and schools around the world that do not have water. It has got to stop. A shortage of clean water for hand washing, sanitation and hygiene is also fundamental in stopping the covid spread
I urge the Government to commit, as a minimum, to returning to the 0.7% aid target as soon as possible. I would like to hear more than warm words from the Minister today. Those words must be backed up by a step change in our funding for water and sanitation, using the role as the chair of the G7 to bring together global donors to fund this and using our role as host of COP26 to bring WASH funding to the fore. It is time for the UK to return to being a world leader in delivering water and sanitation programmes, and the UK public will cheer us on.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow my good friend my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on an issue that is extremely close to both our hearts. Members are making some fantastic points about global water poverty, but I am sure it will come as no surprise that I will be keeping my contributions focused on the situation a little closer to home. Colleagues may not be aware of this, but in my former life I worked at the not-for-profit water company Dŵr Cymru—Welsh Water. I am also the proud co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on water.
I have raised the issue of flooding time and again in my contributions, and I am afraid that today, in a debate commemorating World Water Day, it would be remiss of me to open with any other topic. As colleagues will be aware, my community in Pontypridd was hit by devastating flooding in February last year. More than 1,800 homes were affected and, sadly, water entered more than 320 homes across my constituency. Time and again in this House, I and my Rhondda Cynon Taf colleagues —my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) and for Ogmore (Chris Elmore)—have called on this Government to step up and take the issue of flooding in Wales seriously. After much persistence from my Labour colleagues and me, I was pleased to see that the Chancellor finally accepted some responsibility to the communities in Wales, and pledged £31 million for flooding repairs and to help secure the coal tips.
Sadly, however, I have real concerns about this Government’s commitment to working with the Welsh Government to secure long-term, sustainable solutions to this problem. One of the major problems facing people in my community who have experienced flooding is accessing home insurance. Although the Flood Re scheme has helped some individuals, there are still major problems of affordability, especially for the poorest households. One of the major concerns that brings real anxiety to people who have experienced flooding is the possibility that this could happen again.
Ultimately, if nothing is done to address the climate crisis in this country, sadly, many more people will find themselves with the same anxiety and fears as those of my constituents. Indeed, the Met Office’s own report on the issue, “State of the UK Climate”, published in 2019, shows that the UK’s climate is becoming wetter. The findings highlighted that the highest rainfall totals over a five-day period were 4% higher between 2008 and 2017 compared with the averages between 1961 and 1990.
We are lucky in Wales to have our fantastic Welsh Labour Government, who not only have a fantastic record on tackling climate change, but are at the forefront of supporting sustainable planning and home building across the country. Colleagues may roll their eyes, but one of the policy areas I feel most passionate about is sustainable drainage systems. In 2019, the Welsh Labour Government introduced mandatory regulations on new housing developments to help reduce flood risk and improve water quality. These SUDS not only help address the issue of flooding in a sustainable and environmentally friendly way, but can help improve local wildlife and biodiversity. Despite the fantastic benefits of SUDS, the UK Government still trail behind and have failed to introduce mandatory regulations for developments here in England.
To conclude, while I am aware that my contribution today is at risk of turning into an ode to my former employer, I would also like to place on record my support for any initiatives that improve accessibility to clean water. The last 12 months have been extraordinarily difficult for my community both because of the devastation of last year’s flooding and because the coronavirus has left many people concerned about their jobs and livelihoods. Welsh Water, being a not-for-profit company, truly is leading the way with some fantastic work to support those who need extra help. Its HelpU scheme helps the lowest-income households eligible to have their bills capped so that they know they will not be paying over a certain amount of money.
I am sure we can all agree that such schemes are vital to helping people across Wales, regardless of income, have access to clean, sanitised water. This is particularly important in a world where, according to research by the World Health Organisation and the UN, a whopping 785 million people do not have clean water close to home. With the Queen’s Speech just round the corner, I sincerely hope that the Minister will carefully consider the points raised here today. The Government have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to lead from the front on climate change and to make a real and meaningful difference to everyone who lives under the threat of flooding.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) on securing this vitally important debate for World Water Day.
Clean water, decent toilets and good hygiene are key foundations to supporting communities to break free from extreme poverty and inequality. Water Aid’s mission statement says:
“Some people dream of finding water on Mars. Others dream of finding it here on Earth.”
While developed countries continue to rightly seek progress, we have to recognise that the basic life-sustaining rights we are afforded need to be replicated in deprived areas across the world. I recognise that progress has been made, as 1.7 billion people have gained access to safely managed sanitation since 2000, but there is still a long way to go. Some 55% of the global population still do not have access to safe sanitation, and 2 billion people lack access to safe water for drinking, cooking or personal use.
We have seen over the past year how a shortage of clean water for handwashing, sanitation and general hygiene in healthcare facilities worldwide has undermined countries’ covid response. The lack of access to water in hospitals and clinics has risked the lives of health workers and patients as well as potentially perpetuating the pandemic.
Without concerted international action, the situation in the global south is going to quickly deteriorate because of the climate emergency. It is the world’s most vulnerable who bear the brunt of climate breakdown despite having contributed to it the least. Extreme weather such as prolonged droughts is drying up water sources, while rising sea levels and flooding are contaminating ill-protected water supplies. The Environmental Justice Foundation has estimated that one in every seven people in Bangladesh will be displaced by climate change by 2050. Former Governor of the Bank of England and UN special envoy Mark Carney has said:
“When you look at climate change from a human mortality perspective, it will be the equivalent of a coronavirus crisis every year from the middle of this century, and every year, not just a one-off event.”
It is shameful that when faced with such a huge injustice, the Conservative Government decide to step back from their international commitments by slashing the overseas aid budget from 0.7% of GNI to 0.5%. The Government must not renege on our internationally binding obligation to work collaboratively to guarantee access to water and sanitation for all by 2030 under the 2015 UN sustainable development goals.
As well as addressing water scarcity in developing countries, the UK also has an obligation to ensure that it is not wasted domestically. The Tories’ privatisation of water has been a disaster. People have been left without water for days and trillions of litres of water have been lost through leakages, all while billions of pounds of bill payers’ money is siphoned off in dividend payments to wealthy shareholders. The only way to end the dismal mistreatment of our utilities in the UK that is impacting the public’s pocket and our planet is by bringing water back into democratic public ownership.
I echo the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport about the Flint, Michigan water scandal. In Flint, privatised water has had dire consequences for the local community. Private water company Veolia and former governor Rick Snyder prioritised profit over people and the environment, subsequently poisoning a predominantly African-American and economically poor community. If the terrible situation in Flint is to teach us anything, it is that access to water is a right and not a commodity to be profited from.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) on securing this really important debate for World Water Day.
I pay tribute to the incredible Right2Water campaign that the Irish people began in 2014 against the corporate theft of their water in order to maintain their water and sanitation in public ownership, paid for by progressive taxation. This was the biggest single-issue mobilisation of citizens in the state’s history, bringing 600,000 people on to the streets over seven days of peaceful demonstrations and collecting over 2 million signatures for their petition. They demand that water and sanitation are enshrined as a fundamental human right, that water supply and management of water resources are not subject to internal market rules, and that efforts are made to achieve universal access to water and sanitation.
Today, on World Water Day, I take up those demands and call for them to be implemented here in the UK. We need a water and sanitation infrastructure that is driven by universal access, health and safety, protecting the environment, and minimising waste. We know what happens when this fundamental right is corrupted by the profit motive. Throughout the world, private water companies have ravaged our environment and put profits before people.
The Flint water scandal was one of the worst man-made environmental disasters in American history. To cut costs, the private water contractor was allowed to use the Flint water supply to serve the city’s predominantly working-class African American population, with 45% of residents living below the poverty line. A wave of complaints about the foul-smelling, discoloured and off-tasting water were chronically ignored, overlooked and discounted by local government officials for more than 18 months, despite the water causing itchy skin, rashes and hair loss among residents. To date, 12,000 children have been exposed to the dangerous levels of lead that had seeped out of aged and corroded pipelines and into people’s homes. Twelve people died from a related outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease. Faecal coliform bacteria was found in the water and dealt with by the adding of more chlorine without addressing the underlying issues, resulting in increased levels of cancer-causing chemicals in the water. It was a devastating example of environmental injustice and racism, driven by profit and greed.
From fracking in Lancashire to the Dakota access pipeline in the United States, private companies are ravaging our environment and putting profit before the needs and wellbeing of our communities. The climate change emergency brings further risks in respect of access to clean water around the world. The question of water justice is an urgent one and the challenges are growing fast. Some 2 billion people lack access to safe water for drinking, cooking and personal use. Just as the challenges are global, so must be our movement. In the year that the UK plays host to both the G7 and COP26, we need to lead the way by increasing the share of climate finance dedicated to helping the poorest countries to adapt to climate change. With no clean water to drink, cook and wash with, communities falter and people get sick, putting their lives, livelihoods and futures at risk. By 2040, the situation is predicted to be even worse, with climate change making water perilously scarce for 600 million children.
I call on the Government to bring our water back into public ownership and to do everything necessary to ensure that third-world countries have access to clean water to drink, cook and wash.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I have to reduce the time limit to three minutes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to speak in this House for three or four minutes.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) on bringing this matter to the House. We are so blasé about water: we turn on the tap, the water comes out and we do not think about it. But there are parts of the world where that does not happen—although not, of course, around Newcastle in South Down, where people can look at the mountains of Mourne and see whether it is raining or about to rain, and that is perhaps where it is in that country.
A few years ago, I hosted a dinner in a local church and the profits from the meals were going to a project called H2O—water. I heard the story of entire communities taking their water from the river in which animals bathed and did their business and that carried all human waste away. Finance was raised to bore a water well that provided those communities with fresh water, and health has improved in that village as a consequence.
I congratulate the church group Challenge Ministries Swaziland UK for its great work in Swaziland, but it is not alone in the work it carries out. I note that the group is hosting a virtual concert called “Surviving Our Storm” on Friday 26 March at 6.30 pm, with choirs from the Eden church in Newtownards, other churches in Northern Ireland and churches in Swaziland. I will post a link on my Facebook page next week, should anyone wish to watch. It is hard to raise funds these days, but such projects, which think outside the box, ensure that we do not abandon those who rely on us.
There are many missionaries, churches and charities that work so hard to raise awareness and bring about change, and I thank them for all that they do. I understand that the FCDO works with Unilever to bring together groups of people; how can churches, missionary organisations and charity groups feed into that process? They are committed to Africa and further afield and can make things happen.
We all know the horrendous stats: 2 billion people lack access to safe water for drinking, cooking or personal use; 1.7 billion people have gained access to safely managed sanitation since 2000, but 55% per cent of the global population still lacks access; 3 billion people are unable to wash their hands with soap and water; and one in two healthcare facilities in the least developed countries lack basic water services, and three in five have no sanitation services. These things are critical, so I urge the Government to respond in a way that means we can all help.
It is my firm belief that the UK should use its role as chair of the G7 to bring global donors together to fund the $1.2 billion needed to build the basic infrastructure for water, sanitation, hygiene and healthcare facilities in the least developed countries. We can help and make a difference and I believe sincerely that it is right and proper to do so.
I look to the Minister and to my Government to ensure, with the NGOs, that every person has access to that which we take for granted: the basic necessity of water.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for securing this debate on World Water Day. Such a debate is a reminder of how lucky we are in the UK and how fortunate I am. In Scotland, we enjoy world-class, high-quality water, drinkable straight from the tap, and, unlike in England, it is publicly owned and will remain so unless the Tories use the pernicious United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to privatise it. It is worth noting that water bills in Scotland are 12% lower than in England.
The theme of World Water Day 2021 is “Valuing Water” and, indeed, water—safe water—is beyond price. As highlighted by the International Rescue Committee, practising simple hygiene, especially hand washing, plays a critical role in reducing the transmission of covid-19 and other communicable diseases, yet according to the latest UNICEF estimates, only three out of five people worldwide have basic hand-washing facilities. Some 40% of the world’s population, or 3 billion people, do not have a hand-washing facility with water and soap at home.
It is a terrible fact that billions of people worldwide still live without safely managed drinking water and sanitation. The world is not on track, sadly, to achieve the sustainable development goal of sanitation for all by 2030, as the current rate of progress needs to quadruple to reach the global target of universal access by 2030. It is shameful that while every other G7 country has responded to the covid-19 pandemic by increasing aid, the UK Government are alone in choosing to cut it by approximately £4 billion this year, after a cut of £2.9 billion last year, and, in doing so, reneging on a legally binding aid spending commitment and breaking yet another manifesto promise. The Government must urgently rethink this move and U-turn on the plan to abandon their 0.7% commitment to aid spending, if tragic consequences for the world’s most vulnerable are to be avoided.
For example, the UK Government announced earlier this month that they would cut aid to Yemen by nearly 60% in 2022, directly risking cutting food and water support to a quarter of a million vulnerable people. Some 92% of the UK aid budget in Yemen goes to disaster relief, health, education and water, with 7.8 million people in Yemen lacking clean water and sanitation, including an estimated 9.2 million children who have no access to clean water, sanitation and hygiene. In sub-Saharan Africa, 63% of people in urban areas, or 258 million people, currently lack access to hand-washing facilities, while it has been reported that the UK Government are set to cut aid to the most water-scarce region of sub-Saharan Africa by a staggering 93%.
The UK Government’s decision to refocus UK aid spending towards supporting trading interests in favoured countries, as opposed to poverty alleviation, will cost the lives of the poorest people on earth, who do not even have suitable drinking water. There are deep concerns about the UK Government’s £120 million funding cut as well for international research on water security. With almost no notice, this cut has taken place and has been condemned by the UN.
For the poorest people in the world, the situation is already much worse than any of us in the UK could imagine. Extreme weather, such as prolonged droughts, dry up water resources like springs and wells, while rising sea levels and flooding contaminates ill-protected water supplies, with dire consequences. With no clean water to drink, cook or wash, communities falter, putting their lives, livelihoods and futures at risk. By 2040, the situation is predicted to be even worse, with climate change making water perilously scarce for 600 million children—that is one in four.
Safer water has huge implications also for maternal and newborn health and, tragically, infections associated with unclean births account for 26% of newborn deaths and 11% of maternal mortality, together accounting for more than 1 million deaths each year. Approximately 20% of all global deaths are due to sepsis, amounting to approximately 11 million potentially avoidable deaths each year. More than half of all healthcare-associated deaths could be prevented through the provision of safe water and sanitation, as part of infection prevention and control.
A lack of access to water for hygiene and personal use and sanitation can affect women and girls in multiple intersecting ways. Girls and women in sub-Saharan Africa spend 40 billion working hours a year collecting water—time that therefore cannot be spent participating in education, employment, social and political activities. With studies linking child survival most closely to their mother’s education level and poverty level, factors that reduce educational opportunities for girls have significant implications, not only for their economic and social opportunities, but for the health and wellbeing of their families and communities.
Water security is quite literally the difference between life and death, and the poorest people on earth are suffering and dying without vital access to this natural and essential resource. For the UK Government to slash their aid budget when the poorest people on Earth need it most is truly shameful. Let’s change that.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) on securing this important debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who has done so much work in this area, and who continues to fight for proper funding for WASH, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who speaks eloquently about the need for access to clean water close to home and about flooding issues.
It is a pleasure to follow such powerful contributions from across the House. I also want to put on record my thanks to WaterAid and the many other organisations across the world fighting to put water accessibility at the top of the agenda and continuing their fight for a global solution to a global challenge.
Water, and access to water, is at the very core of who we are. It fuels humanity and is the driving force of advancement and progress. Water is the thread that binds us, weaving together people and places across the globe; it is the universal language, but today we have heard Members across the House raise alarming issues, emphasising that in our rapidly changing world, when it comes to water we are no longer equal. Whether because of dwindling resources or access, water is at the centre of the rising crises around us, from climate to conflict to covid. We have a water emergency.
A large portion of the world is on a collision course. Whether through drought, or scarcity, or water weaponisation by rogue actors, 3 billion people across the world are affected by water shortages—half of those as a consequence of climate breakdown. When the wells run dry we learn the true value of water. But it is no longer just the wells; the once great lakes, and the roving rivers that bring fresh water to communities, to fields for crops, and that support jobs and livelihoods, are also drying up.
How lucky are we, then, to have such easy access to water when so many have none—to live in a society where we celebrate the discovery of water on distant planets, yet access for so many is becoming ever more distant. And it is the world’s most vulnerable who bear the brunt, whether that is in conflict zones, in fragile states, or because of climate breakdown.
Last week, I was fortunate to speak to some incredible women—Rose, Rosemary and Comfort, from communities in Kenya and Uganda, three extraordinary women leading grassroots responses to climate breakdown in their own communities. Rosemary, who educates women and girls in rural Kenya to build sustainable water infrastructure, shared her experiences with me. She spoke of the women in her communities who walk for miles to find water, meaning that there is less time to think about how to intervene in, adapt to and mitigate these crises. This means that their daughters must spend more time looking after the household and their siblings, so they are unable to go to school. “It is always the women,” she said, “They are the ones disproportionately affected by the climate crisis and water emergency. They are the ones who have to pick up the pieces. They are the ones who have to find the dwindling supply and lean on daughters for support. Where is the international community for help?”
Rosemary is talking about the importance of aid and development money, making sure that money reaches the people who need it, that girls have access to education and are not forced to stay at home, that the necessary equipment is built for new wells closer to home, and that there is money in place for preventive measures. We know, however, that this Government have announced severe and damaging cuts, which will have a direct impact on Rosemary.
As well as scarcity, there is the increasing weaponisation of water. Naza, a young Syrian woman, told me, “It is always the innocent that suffer.” After 10 years of war in Syria, nowhere is that more true than in Hasakah in north-east Syria, where Turkish authorities break international law by restricting water for half a million people. Worse still, they have had their aid access cut at the border crossing. This must urgently be reauthorised by the Security Council this year.
The Prime Minister chaired the most recent UN Security Council meeting, which looked at water access, and just this week said that tackling climate breakdown is his top priority. Yet his actions do not match his words. Let us look at what this Government are actually doing. Where water scarcity is most acute, the Government have spent upwards of £4 billion on funding fossil fuel projects in developing nations since the Paris climate agreement. Despite promises of a phase-out and a consultation, which by all accounts the Government seem to have already prejudged, we are still waiting for action to be taken. Meanwhile, they continue to green-light projects polluting water sources, fields and food chains. This is unacceptable.
Although distribution of an equitable vaccine through COVAX is essential for fighting covid, it is unlikely that that vaccine will be available in those low income, water-stressed nations until 2023. Water and sanitation are vital for maintaining good hygiene and preventing the spread of the virus. How do we beat a mutating virus when one in three people does not have access to safe drinking water, and two in five people do not have basic hand-washing facilities?
Aid and development spend is our first responder and last line of defence to keep our world safe and secure. It really sticks in the throat that the Minister will no doubt rise to tell this House about problems across the world when it is this Government’s politically motivated cuts to aid that will undo the resilience necessary to tackle them. When the Government are slashing aid by one third, how do they hope to lead at the G7 summit? How will they address the £1 billion shortfall in the funding needed to build the basic infrastructure for water sanitation and hygiene?
The Foreign Secretary has set out seven core priorities for the aid budget for the year ahead, but they do not exist in a silo. When the Government are cutting £5 billion from the aid budget, where do they draw the line? All the issues overlap, driving inequality, scarcity and poverty collectively. Which projects are the Government going to cut? Which person’s lifeline are they choosing to withdraw—Naza or Rosemary? What message does this send as we host COP26 this year? Will the Government give those from climate-vulnerable, low-income nations a voice, as Labour has called for, and a long overdue seat at the table, so that the voices of those I have raised today are given equal weight?
Ambition without action is fantasy. Now it is time for the Government to start leading through the power of their example. They should not turn their back on the most vulnerable when they need us most.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for securing this important debate just four days before World Water Day on 22 March. I am grateful to Members across the House who have raised a number of specific points, which I will address, and who have shared many experiences and examples of the importance of water both domestically and globally.
The theme of this year’s World Water Day is “valuing water”. What does that mean? The value of water is far more than its price. Access to safe water, sanitation and good hygiene is critical for people’s health. In much of the world, diarrhoea is a killer, responsible for the deaths of 1,200 young children a day. Almost 60% of those deaths are caused by inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene.
We have committed to help end preventable deaths, and improving water supply, sanitation and hygiene is one of the most effective ways we can do that. However, as Members have rightly reminded us, nearly 800 million people still lack access to basic water supplies, 2 million live without basic sanitation services, and 3 billion do not have any hand-washing facilities at home. That last statistic should ring loud. We are dealing with the worst pandemic in a century, and 40% of the global population are unable to wash their hands at home—something that we take for granted.
Beyond the household, one in four healthcare facilities has no water supply, rising to 50% in the world’s least developed countries. Health facilities should be a source of care, not of infection. We want universal access to water, sanitation and hygiene by 2030, but at the current rate of progress we are not going to achieve that before the end of the century.
The value of water extends well beyond its direct connection with health. Water allows children—especially girls—to attend school and learn there. According to UNICEF, one in three girls lacks basic water supplies. Even more lack facilities for menstrual hygiene, which is a massive barrier for adolescent girls. Access to water for household use and public services is fundamental for human health and development, but it only accounts for 11% of all the fresh water we use. Agriculture and industry use the rest, and demand is fast outpacing supply. Climate change is making the situation worse, as we have heard this afternoon. In many parts of the world, prolonged drought and severe flooding are becoming more common, which have particularly high human impacts in developing countries. Poor people are experiencing climate change through water.
The UK Government take the issue of water and sanitation very seriously, as a development concern and as part of our approach to dealing with covid-19. Members have raised the importance of hand washing. Recognising that hand hygiene is a critical element to tackle the virus, in March last year we forged a unique partnership with Unilever: the Hygiene and Behaviour Change Coalition. It is a brilliant example of what we can achieve through partnership, with the private sector, the public sector, civil society and research institutions all working together. We provided £50 million of funding, which Unilever matched in hygiene products and expertise in promoting behaviour change.[Official Report, 23 March 2021, Vol. 691, c. 4MC.]
The programme has been active in 37 low and middle-income countries, from Brazil to Kiribati and Syria to South Africa. Action on the ground is by an amazing team of 18 NGOs, UNICEF, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Unilever has donated tens of millions of bars of soap and other hygiene products, alongside its valuable advice and campaign materials. This ambitious programme has an equally ambitious target, which is to reach 1 billion people with essential advice on hand hygiene, and we are almost there.
More broadly, I am pleased to report that we have exceeded our target of 60 million more people with safe water or sanitation over the last five years. Those receiving our support are among the world’s poorest and in fragile or conflict-affected areas.
Reliability and sustainability are important concerns, too. We are assessing the sustainability of our earlier work and that review will inform a shift in our emphasis. We will move from supporting household or community systems to supporting Governments to establish or strengthen services. British innovation will drive services from e-payment and smart maintenance systems to safe reuse and recycling. That will maximise the impact of UK aid and, at the same time, demonstrate what the UK has to offer in this area. It will also help to attract domestic and private resources, which are vital to meet our ambition of universal access to water, sanitation and hygiene by 2030.
That shift will be reinforced by national leadership on water, sanitation and hygiene, with sound policies and plans that are backed up by good evidence. We will do that through several channels: the Sanitation and Water for All partnership, which includes more than 70 national Governments, our support to the World Health Organisation for evidence-based guidance, and our support to the UNICEF-WHO joint monitoring programme, which is tracking progress against the sanitation and water global goal. That work reinforces our wider objectives of safeguarding water resources.
With UK support, water insecurity is an increasingly hot topic for Governments in the run-up to COP26 later this year in Glasgow. The new Adaptation Action Coalition has identified water as one of the three priority themes to address with UK support. We know that the challenges are enormous, but I am confident that we can and will use our insight, experience and resources to good effect. We will work with like-minded partners and deliver the impact that is urgently needed.
Navendu Mishra
I thank all those who have taken part in this debate ahead of World Water Day on Monday. I thank the shadow Minister and the Minister for their contributions. In particular, I thank the Backbench Business Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for supporting me with this debate.
There is overwhelming support in this country for bringing water companies back into public hands—63% are in favour, and Scotland’s publicly owned Scottish Water is the most trusted utility company in Britain. From listening to the many contributions to the debate, it is clear that there is widespread consensus that the Government must honour the UK’s international aid commitment, restore the ring-fenced aid funding and reverse the cuts that have led to a number of programmes relating to the provision of clean water, hygiene and sanitation being underfunded.
What was also communicated today is that the privatised water system in our country is not fit for purpose and that it must be brought back into public hands to ensure the highest standards and value to the consumer. It must finally be restored after decades of failure.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered World Water Day 2021.
Public Landmarks Review
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Britain is under attack—not in a physical sense, but in a philosophical, ideological and historical sense. Our heritage is under direct assault. There are those who seek to call the very sense of what it is to be British today into question. Attempts are being made to rewrite our history, indoctrinate our children with anti-British propaganda and impose an alternative worldview.
Our institutions have been undermined. Attempts have been made to sully the reputations of towering figures from British history because the views of their time may not conform to today’s values. The rise of the power, reach and influence of social media in recent years has been highly influential, increasing the pace and spread of what is a broadly left-wing, anti-British, anti-western and anti-capitalist rhetoric. A domino phenomenon is being witnessed as a succession of national institutions and organisations accept, seemingly without question or critical analysis, the new orthodoxy.
The new orthodoxy has become colloquially known as the woke perspective. In modern day Britain, the woke viewpoint includes attacking the historical concept of Britain by reinterpreting British history in a slanted and decontextualised manner, using modern viewpoints and value judgments. In woke eyes, the British empire is no longer seen as a modernising, civilising force that spread trade, wealth and the rule of law around the globe. Instead, it is viewed as a racist, colonialist, oppressive force than invaded sovereign foreign countries, plundered them and enslaved people en masse.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Gareth Bacon
Great British heroes such as Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson and Sir Winston Churchill, who were until comparatively recently almost universally regarded in a highly favourable light, now have their reputations besmirched.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the House. When we record greatness, we celebrate men and women who are inherently imperfect. When I look at Churchill’s statue in Parliament Square, I honour what Churchill represented: duty, fortitude and an unwavering belief that when we British stood together, we could not be defeated. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these are worthy of celebration and honour today, and that by tearing them down we make no statement other than that we will not acknowledge our past, which makes me fear for our future?
Gareth Bacon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I agree with him unreservedly. I would also like to acknowledge the honour of being intervened on by him. I gather this is a rite of passage for any Member of Parliament: you are not really a Member of Parliament until you have been intervened upon by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), so I am very grateful to him.
Britain, a small country on the north-western edge of the European continent that led the world in the fields of science, industry, democracy, trade, law, the arts and much more besides, and that stood and fought, often for long periods alone, for freedom against European tyranny in the shape of Napoleon and Nazism and successfully opposed Soviet Communism, is reinterpreted in the woke perspective solely as a slave-owning force of oppression and evil. The slanted views of the woke perspective focus firmly on the past. Its preoccupation is with rewriting that past in order to alter the present. By rewriting Britain’s long and varied history to focus solely on slavery, without any acknowledgement of Britain’s huge role in stamping it out, the woke perspective seeks historical justification for its ideological belief that modern Britain is inherently racist, with an entirely shameful past.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that woke activists are of course entitled to their views, and to express them, but that they are not entitled to impose those views as though they were in any way authoritative or unchallengeable? Does he agree that that is an arrogant and divisive standpoint to take?
Gareth Bacon
I agree with my hon. Friend. In any mature democracy, the right to hold alternative views and to express them is unchallengeable. However, what I do not think is unchallengeable is an attempt to stamp out contrary views, to cancel people, to bully and intimidate them and to make them fear for their safety simply because they have an alternative view.
This woke view of our nation’s history fails to recognise the open, tolerant and global Britain that is a force for good in the world—a champion of democracy, equality, peace and prosperity that was forged in the empire. Its mission is to destroy the accepted sense of Britain in order to impose a countervailing ideological perspective, because if it delegitimises the one, it is possible to legitimise the other. Of course, there is no better way to achieve this than to topple the towering heroes on which British history balances. For example, left-wing efforts to paint Churchill as a racist are an attempt to warp our country’s memory of the second world war.
It is against this backdrop that we see a sudden push from some quarters to question the legitimacy of the statues, monuments and even the road names of certain parts of our country. Chief among them, of course, is London. Our capital city has always been the political, governmental, financial and cultural centre of our country. It therefore has many historic monuments. Unfortunately for London, it also has a Mayor who has never wasted a moment in ingratiating himself with woke activists.
Within days of the protests in central London last summer, Sadiq Khan announced that he would create a commission for diversity in the public realm. Staggeringly, for a man who constantly pleads poverty when it comes to carrying out his core functions of building houses, running the transport system or keeping people safe on the streets, Sadiq Khan has set aside £1.1 million of taxpayers’ money for this exercise. He claims that the commission is about putting up more monuments of historically significant black and ethnic minority figures and to aid public understanding. This indeed is a worthy aim, but he rather let the cat out of the bag when asked last June whether he thought the commission would lead to statues being removed, and he said, “I hope so.”
The Mayor’s desire to rewrite history is underlined in the application pack for people aspiring to be on the commission. In it, the Mayor states:
“Our statues, street names, memorials and buildings have left a distorted view of the past.”
He goes on to call for the commission to:
“Further the discussion into what legacies should be celebrated.”
The terms of reference for the commission stated that there would be:
“A fair and transparent recruitment process resulting in a group of 15 Commission Members in addition to the two Co-Chairs with broad-ranging knowledge, expertise and lived experience relevant to the work of the Commission.”
Anyone who takes that at face value is either spectacularly naive or they have not been following the development of Sadiq Khan’s mayoralty.
In February, the membership of the commission was announced, and it is fair to say that it removed any pretence that it would produce an impartial and objective historical world view. One of the commissioners has already been forced to resign for antisemitic comments he made in the past. Of the remaining commissioners, one has said:
“The UK is evil. It is the common denominator in atrocities across the world and is responsible for white supremacy everywhere.”
Another said:
“Boris Johnson is an out and out complete”—
he then uses an obscene four-letter word beginning with c —“who is overtly racist.” He goes on to express support for defunding the police. A third claimed last year that:
“The concept of race was created by white people in order to give them power over non-white people.”
When setting this commission up, the Mayor claimed:
“The membership will be representative of London’s diversity.”
Diversity of what? Certainly not diversity of thought or of political opinion. These people are hand-picked, hard-left political activists. Sadiq Khan is playing an irresponsible and dangerous game by establishing a new commission to tear down London’s landmarks. The Mayor expects this to be an easy, virtue-signalling public relations win, but his decision has created division and inflamed tensions in the capital. A recent poll conducted by YouGov found that 42% of Londoners oppose the plans, compared with 38% who are in favour of them.
An e-petition calling for the protection of all historical statues and monuments has attracted more than 35,000 signatures of support. Shaun Bailey, Mr Khan’s Conservative opponent in the forthcoming London mayoral election, commented:
“The Mayor has driven wedges between communities…With his diversity commission, he’s trying to re-write British history, but he does not have the expertise or the authority to do this.”
He is completely correct.
One of my constituents wrote to me, and I will quote what he said at length. He said:
“I originated from Pakistan and my late Father was born in India. I am very concerned about how the identity politics and cancel culture is being promoted. I fully support those who have raised their concerns about Mr Khan’s initiative about changing the names of London roads and dismantling historic statues and monuments.
There are no other nations or countries which will wipe out or bring disrepute to their empires or Kingdoms and will actively degrade their heroes. History is history and let it not punish our present!”
He continues:
“If we study the…British Empire, the British left a huge legacy throughout its vast empire. The British made a chain of Universities and medical colleges, the world’s best irrigation system, it introduced a new structure of administration and introduced democracy in the Subcontinent. It built modern infrastructure including railway tracks, bridges and railway stations. Moreover Britain has welcomed people from North, South, East and West and we must teach patriotism in our schools.”
Whether we like it or not, there are many very good, some bad and a few ugly elements in Britain’s past, and it is a complicated picture, filled with imperfect heroes. The notion that historical figures should be judged by today’s standards will eliminate every British hero this country holds dear. Will Sadiq Khan topple Churchill for his support for the British empire? Will Admiral Nelson fall for living in a time when slavery existed? Will Sir Francis Drake, Oliver Cromwell, King James II, Lord Kitchener and William Gladstone be erased, and their contributions to British history forgotten, because they were flawed characters? Where do we draw the line? Should Gandhi’s statue be removed because he believed Indians were racially superior to Africans? Will Karl Marx’s tomb be destroyed because of his deeply held antisemitism? Should Egypt’s pyramids and Rome’s colosseum fall because they were built by slaves and those civilisations profited from that abhorrent trade?
This is why Sadiq Khan was wrong to jump on this latest virtue-signalling bandwagon. His decision to tear down statues in London risks encouraging left-wing mobs to topple statues themselves and far-right mobs to take to the streets to protect them. The events of last summer are proof of that. Instead of posturing in this way, the Mayor should take a long, hard look at his record of failure, which has left communities behind in London. After five years at the helm of City Hall, it is time he took his fair share of responsibility for the challenges and inequities that exist in London today. On his watch: violent crime soared to record levels and murder reached an 11-year high; only 17,000 affordable homes have been completed in five years; 22 major transport upgrades that could regenerate communities have either been delayed or cancelled; and Crossrail is three years late and £4 billion over budget, and Transport for London has lost £2 billion in fares income it would otherwise have accumulated.
The sad truth is that London is saddled with a Mayor who is not especially interested in the core functions of his role. There is no virtue he will not signal, no passing bandwagon he will not jump on and no gallery he will not play to in his never-ending attempt to ingratiate himself with the latest trend on Twitter. Pandering to woke activists in this way is deeply disturbing. These moves are illegitimate and dangerous. They will do nothing for inclusiveness. Instead, they will foster bitterness and resentment on all sides. We must not go down this route. If the Mayor of London insists on pushing ahead with this deeply divisive, virtue-signalling exercise, the Government should step up to protect our national heritage and explicitly strip him of the power to dismantle it.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Politics is about values. Gone are the days when half-hearted political careerists could retreat to the safe ground of mechanistic economic minutiae, for the new battle of Britain has begun. Islamic extremists, Black Lives Matter radicals and Extinction Rebellion rioters despise our way of life, and British patriots expect resistance, not retreat, and from resistance we will advance. In years gone by, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) said, children were taught about the exploits of our nation’s heroes. Now, left-wing zealots and their ill-educated acolytes are determined, by cancelling the past, to dictate the future. For them, heroes must be cancelled too. Yet in the struggle to counter the brave new world of moral relativism and meaningless mundanity heroes remain vital, as he said, for our shared sense of identity. By embodying the spirit of their times, they bring historical truth to life, so building our collective understanding of how our nation was forged.
In essence, heroes bring us together, just as the identity politics of the left seeks to tear us apart. By dividing us into exclusionary social tribes, the socioeconomic elite distract to disarm us, so perpetuating their heartless rule over working-class patriots. Make no mistake, this political struggle of our time is for all time.
In Marxist cultural dogma, identity must always be defined by a sense of grievance. Rather than fostering harmonious patriotic pride, they deride our colonial history, ignorantly dismissing our time-honoured worldwide contribution to civilisation. Nowhere is heroism more potent than when soldiers, sailors and airmen leave their homes, families and friends to protect British interests in storms of all kinds across vast oceans and distant landscapes.
Mindful of exceptional service, it is our patriotic duty to commemorate those who have been awarded our nation’s highest honours. A total of 1,300 individuals have been awarded the Victoria Cross for valour in the presence of the enemy; 408 men and women have received the George Cross after displaying conspicuous courage in circumstances of extreme danger. Too many who have given so much have been all but forgotten. In some places, locals may be unaware that they tread in the footsteps of local heroes, who made a difference to their whole nation.
The Members of Parliament associated with the Common Sense Group seek to commemorate VC and GC recipients by naming roads, parks and public buildings in their honour, reigniting their memory and refreshing their legacy. Let us have more plaques, more memorials, more statues, not merely retaining and explaining, but retaining, explaining and acclaiming the heroism of those who helped to build Britain.
In the same spirit, as our eyes are lifted to public buildings, all should fly the Union flag—the flag of our United Kingdom. I hope the Minister will confirm that, immediately following this Adjournment debate, he will take measures to put such an instruction in place.
The story of our heroes teaches us that, through service and sacrifice, men and women reach the apex of human endeavour. For our generation and those born later, let us glory in this, our land of hope.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I will be very, very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. Churchill is the great thing that the left aim for, and there is a reason for that. Churchill is at the core of why many people feel proud to be British—the Churchillian spirit. If they can take him down, if they can redefine him, what is to stop them? We must not allow it to happen, and those at Churchill College should hang their heads in shame for the way that they allowed his legacy to be questioned in the way that they did.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) made a wonderful speech. This matter is not just for London MPs. This is our nation’s capital, and the heritage of London is our nation’s heritage, so despite being criticised by some Labour councillors from my patch for getting involved in a debate about memorials and statues in London, I will continue to do so, and I make no apology for that.
We saw the reality this week in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. I am glad that we have increased the punishment for those who desecrate and damage our war memorials and statues, but we saw how the Labour party sought to ridicule that. It has ceased to be a patriotic party. Quite frankly, we are more likely to see its leader on his knees apologising for our country’s past and heritage than proudly standing up for it as the greatest country in the world, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington has wonderfully done. I will keep my comments at that: short, punchy and, hopefully, patriotic.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
May I begin by congratulating both my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) on securing this debate and the other Members who have spoken on their excellent, sincere and considered contributions? I always listen with great care and attention to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and, as far as I am able, I always do what I can to achieve his objects. No one, either, would ever question my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for being anything other than punchy and patriotic in the pursuit of his constituents’ interests.
The starting point, and the end point, for this Government is that it is our duty to protect our nation’s history, traditions and heritage. We believe that our history shapes us, that we are poorer if we seek to deny that history, and that the right approach to statues and other public landmarks, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) attested, however contentious they may be to some, is to retain and, if it is appropriate, to explain them to enable better public understanding and respect.
Many Members, today and in previous debates in the House, have spoken proudly of the tradition that we have in this country of commemorating individuals with statues to acknowledge their contributions to society, whether at local or national level. Those erected by local communities can be a lasting and shared source of local pride. Frank Whittle, the inventor of the jet engine, is commemorated in Coventry, where he is from, and in Lutterworth, Rugby and a number of other places around our country. Edith Cavell’s memorial near Trafalgar Square was erected by public subscription, as was the statue in my own town, Tamworth, to Sir Robert Peel, a man who repealed the corn laws, emancipated the Catholics, founded the police—a force for liberal good in our country, even though last year there was a flurry on social media to pull him down.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington spoke about his concerns at the action of the Mayor of London in setting up his commission for diversity in the public realm, with the purported intention of increasing the representation of London’s great and diverse communities in its built environment, but the real aim of which seems to be to airbrush the past and demolish public monuments to our history. Certainly, its composition is concerning—as my hon. Friend suggested, one member has already been forced to resign—and although I have written to the Mayor about its true cost and its true intentions, he has yet to reply to me, so I share my hon. Friend’s concerns.
Marco Longhi
Does the Minister therefore agree that the £1.1 million that the Mayor purportedly intends to spend on his commission for statues should be spent on better supporting Londoners at this very difficult time, and that the Leader of the Opposition should direct the Mayor to do exactly that?
Christopher Pincher
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who of course has a statue to the Earl of Dudley looking over his town in the west midlands. The Leader of the Opposition should take his Mayor in hand, but I am afraid that I must borrow from Euripides, who famously said that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. If Euripides were with us today, he would probably say that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make members and leaders of the Labour party, because the leader of the Labour party has gone mad. He has been captured. He is a POW—a prisoner of woke. I trust that he will be released so that he can direct his friend the Mayor of London to pay greater attention to Londoners, because it will be for them, ultimately, to judge whether that £1.1 million of public expenditure is spent on statue destruction, or whether the Mayor might better spend his time and the public’s money trying to put up more homes for Londoners rather than pull down their statues in public parks.
I suspect that the Mayor’s real interest is to distract us and draw our attention away from his lamentable failure to build a better future for Londoners. To borrow from Churchill—by the way, his statues are going nowhere—Sadiq Khan is a very modest Mayor with much to be modest about. Let me be quite clear: his lopsided commission has no mandate to advocate for the removal of existing statues. The Government’s policy is that historic statues should be retained and explained rather than removed, and any such proposed removal of an historic statue should rightly be, and will be, subject to planning permission or listed building consent.
Sir John Hayes
And, I hope, to acclaim. In congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) on securing the debate, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to support the idea that I advanced of more plaques and statues, particularly for winners of the VC and GC, who, by the way, are drawn from all ethnicities?
Christopher Pincher
I am always prepared to recognise the honour done for us by those great men who won the Victoria Cross, from wherever they hailed, and I certainly hope that more plaques to their memory are forthcoming.
By doing the things that we are proposing to do, we will give the whole community—not simply the self-loathing, Britain-hating perpetual revolutionaries who seem to have captured the commanding heights of the Labour party, but the whole community—the opportunity to engage and to give their views. Additionally, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has the power to call in planning applications, and he has set out his intention to exercise that power if appropriate.
It is clear from the contributions in this debate and in the wider public discourse that, with the passing of time and changing values in society, there will be examples of those who have had statues erected to them whose own story—and perhaps their family’s—is complex. Many statues and other historical objects were created by generations with different perspectives on right and wrong from our own. Some of what they believed to be virtues, we now believe to be vices. But it is better—far better—to remember that history, reflect that not everyone in the past was perfect, and retain that history and its monuments, so that we can all better understand it, not destroy it as the Marxist, wokeist ideologues would insist on.
We have a proud and rich history. Britain led the way in the abolition of slavery; we were foremost in abolishing it. The Royal Navy was one of the seminal forces sweeping it from the seas. So when we hear of those who argue that some public memorials are an abomination and that statues of people who profited from the transatlantic slave trade should be taken down, this Government’s clear view is that doing so is quite misguided. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington asked, where does that misguided logic end? Are we to take down the statue of Julius Caesar from Tower Hill, for we can be pretty sure that he brought slaves with him in 54 BC and doubtless carried away a few enslaved ancient Britons when he left? Do we want the Elgin marbles taken down and hidden away because they appear to deny the existence of slavery in ancient Greece? That is where that logic leads, but where does it end?
Our view of retaining and, where right, explaining is shared by Historic England, the Government’s advisory body on the historic environment. If we remove difficult and contentious parts of our heritage, we risk harming our own understanding of our collective past; yet that is where some of these book burners of the internet age are set on going. Ours is a great country with a proud and illustrious heritage of democracy, freedom and rule of law, and that is why we do not gloss over any failures in our past, nor seek to destroy the historic heritage that can help us understand those failures.
I am pleased to update the House on the changes that the Government are bringing forward to ensure the protection of our heritage. The planning system plays a crucial part in conserving and enhancing our heritage. I am pleased to tell the House that under the changes coming into effect in the spring, any proposals to remove an unlisted public landmark will require an application for planning permission, giving communities the right to be consulted. We are also introducing notification requirements to ensure that the Secretary of State is made aware of any contentious applications and has the opportunity to exercise his call-in powers if he considers that appropriate
History, by its nature, can be contentious. But rest assured: the Government will act to ensure that our national heritage is protected from those who would seek to remove or deface it. The Spanish philosopher, Jorge Santayana, wrote in his “The Life of Reason”—and Churchill often quoted him—
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.
For the sake of our remembered history, so that we do not repeat it—and, please, for the sanity of the Labour party—let us agree to remember and explain our past, not seek to destroy it.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions and Simplifications) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
Draft Agricultural (Financial Assistance) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members to observe social distancing and to sit only where it is clearly marked that they should be sitting. Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee, and Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members sent their speaking notes directly to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
I will call the Minister to move the first motion and to speak to both instruments. At the end of the debate, I will put the question on the first motion, then ask the Minister to move the second motion formally. I call Minister Prentis.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions and Simplifications) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Agriculture (Financial Assistance) Regulations 2021.
Victoria Prentis
It is a great pleasure to serve—for the first time, I think—under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. The matters in these statutory instruments are closely related. They will be made under the powers in the Agriculture Act 2020, and will implement important aspects of the new agricultural policy that we set out in our agricultural transition plan, which was published in November last year.
The first SI sets reductions that will be applied to direct payments made in the 2021 claim year. The Government are committed to phasing out untargeted direct payments over a seven-year agricultural transition period, which will free up money so that we can pay farmers to improve the environment, improve animal health and welfare, and reduce carbon emissions. All funding released from the reductions will be reinvested in new schemes in this Parliament. The reductions will be applied fairly, with higher reductions initially applied to amounts in higher payment bands. The reductions for the 2021 scheme are modest, at 5% for around 80% of farmers. We published the reductions back in 2018, so that farmers would have time to prepare for the changes. The SI sets the reductions for the 2021 claim year only; we will set out the reductions for later years in future SIs.
The SI will make minor amendments to reflect the fact that direct payments will be calculated in sterling from now on. It will also amend the direct payments rules to remove the euro thresholds below which the Rural Payments Agency does not need to recover overpayments or payment entitlements, or to charge interest.
Finally, the SI will make two consequential amendments that were not covered in the Direct Payments to Farmers and Cross-Compliance (Simplifications) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020. This SI will remove a redundant cross-reference—I believe it was helpfully picked up by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments—relating to the greening rules that were removed by the 2020 regulations. The SI will also change the percentage figure used to calculate young farmer payments, which makes it clear that the value of those payments will not be affected by the removal of the greening payment.
The second SI will put in place financial data publication, enforcement and monitoring requirements for four new financial assistance schemes: countryside stewardship, the farming investment fund scheme, the tree health pilot, and the environmental land management national pilot scheme, which includes the sustainable farming incentive.
The SI will provide a critical opportunity to test, refine and develop environmental land management and tree health schemes in pilot form ahead of their full launch. It will require information about the financial assistance given under those schemes to be published. Information published will include the total payment received by a beneficiary for each scheme they are in, and a description of the activities financed by the payment. Publication of personal data will not be required for payments below a de minimis level or in respect of payments made under the tree health pilot where, instead, aggregated data will be published.
On checks, enforcement and monitoring, this instrument provides for a flexible and proportionate framework. Provisions include checking eligibility criteria at the application stage and monitoring compliance with individual grant agreements and scheme conditions. A range of enforcement options is available under the instrument in the event of a breach, including withholding payments and recovering payments previously awarded. The instrument will also provide powers of entry and inspection to enforce compliance—for example, to check or inspect land, livestock or machinery. A formal complaints and appeals process will be available if agreement holders are aggrieved by certain decisions.
In drafting the instrument, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs engaged with key stakeholders in a targeted consultation exercise between 4 August and 1 September last summer, which very much informed the way in which we wrote this SI.
Taken together, these instruments will implement provisions provided for by the 2020 Act. They will begin the move away from the inefficient direct payments model of the common agricultural policy and provide an important framework allowing new financial assistance schemes to operate effectively, in line with our agricultural transition plan. I commend the instruments to the Committee.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Paisley, for what I think is the first time, and, of course, a pleasure to continue the ongoing dialogue with the Minister. As ever, she has laid out the measures clearly. As she would expect, I have a critique of them, although I can assure her that we will not be opposing the SIs, because we have no desire to bring an unnecessary number of people into the Committee Room. However, we do have some concerns. We are, as she rightly said, a year on from the discussions on the 2020 Act. We now finally have the tables of reductions that we were considering over a year ago in the legislation, which is a start.
I am interested in the fact that both measures relate to England—paragraphs 3.2 to 3.5 of the explanatory memorandums for these regulations make that clear. I think the wording is quite interesting: it almost lays down a challenge for devolved institutions to follow. Of course, different strategies are being adopted in different parts of the United Kingdom, and English farmers might well feel that they are immediately put at a disadvantage and might wonder why, especially in a week in which Sainsbury’s has followed Tesco in demanding lower prices from suppliers. With all the problems facing people at the moment, some might feel that they are not so much being squeezed as strangled.
However, perhaps the key point in the Minister’s opening comments, as is now clear from the documents, is that this is the 2021 scheme year—that is, one year only. The Minister will remember discussing what I used to describe as my favourite document. I still have a dog-eared copy here, from a day I will never forget: the rushed-out photocopied versions to give the Secretary of State cover at the Oxford farming conference, as I recall.
In that document, we had the implications for, or what would happen in, subsequent years, and, as the Minister has rightly said, late last year we saw the figures for subsequent years. I wonder why we are doing this one year at a time. The EU used to have a seven-year budgeting period. It seems to me that we are in danger of regressing to annual short-termism, which I do not think is welcome, so I wonder whether the Minister can confirm that—other issues permitting—we will be back here this time next year discussing the 2022 figures, and I suspect in subsequent years, too.
However, that is only half the story, because this is about the reductions. What many people want to know is where the money is going, and how it is to be used. Will all the money being saved go to farmers? I note that the Minister’s words were, as ever, carefully chosen, in that it would be used within this Parliament. That is an interesting point, because she is probably much more expert than me on how departmental budgets are managed, but is there a roll-over facility, and if so, where is it? Can we see it? Can we question it? How much do we expect to be spent this year, and how much to be carried over into following years? That matters, because if the money is not spent, I fear that in the current financial climate there may be eyes in the Treasury looking to recoup some of it. The Minister shakes her head knowingly, but I suspect that there are.
Part of the reason I am concerned is that when the SFI was announced last week—I think that was the latest announcement—a few hundred pilots were suggested. A few hundred is very different from the 80,000-plus who receive basic payments. The Country Land and Business Association tells us that, using DEFRA’s own figures, 75% of farming enterprises are unprofitable without direct payments. The problem seems pretty clear to me: there is a major mismatch.
What was also disappointing about last week’s announcement is the fact that those on stewardship schemes at the moment do not seem to be eligible to apply for the pilots. While that is perhaps not a departure from a specific promise—clearly, they will be able to transition at some point—people could rightly feel disadvantaged. I worry about where the money might be.
I want to be clear that we want the environmental land management scheme to work. We understand the need to do pilots, and to learn, but it seems very slow and I must remind the Minister that I asked many of the questions I am asking today a year ago. A certain amount of vagueness at that point might have been reasonable, but we need to move on. I hardly need tell her that farmers have to make decisions. The cycle is long, and people need to look ahead, but it is hard to make business decisions when they are uncertain about levels of support.
The Minister might remember that on one or two occasions I was quite cross about some of the language used in my favourite document. I thought that we had got past that, but on the policy background, paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum to the direct payments regulations contains this assertion:
“Direct payments are untargeted, can inflate land rent prices and can stand in the way of new entrants.”
All that is true, but it could also be said that they are universal, relatively simple to administer and a vital lifeline for tens of thousands of farmers, with key knock-on benefits for many rural communities. Would it really be so difficult for those who draft such points to acknowledge, when other things are also true, that the issues are complicated?
The document also says, revealingly:
“Phasing out Direct Payments will free up money to support agriculture in different ways, including paying farmers to improve the environment.”
Why “including” when the word could have been “by”? It is reasonable to suggest that there are questions to be answered. Has there been a casual oversight in the wording, or does the document, as I suspect, suggest that money will leach out, away from farmers? Quite possibly it will be well spent, but farmers deserve to know.
May I query why the 5% reduction with respect to payments over £150,000 is being omitted? How much money will that save, where will it go and what will it be spent on? The suggestion is that it is complicated to do the calculation, but I am sure that the Department has a spreadsheet somewhere that could do it. I wonder whether there will be an effect on the overall amount that others receive, because my recollection is that calculations start and work back from the overall financial ceiling. That may have an impact.
Wales and Scotland used capping to divert funds to environmental and rural development measures. We have had that discussion before, and I gently remind the Government that when they were criticising the EU scheme for failing on environmental grounds there was the opportunity to use those mechanisms, but they chose not to do so.
The Minister frequently accuses me of being too gloomy, so I should say that there are some positive things. Clearly, simplifying the overpayments system and doing calculations in sterling make sense, as does changing the percentage to calculate young farmer payments to reflect the changes already made with respect to the removal of the greening payment. However, I must draw attention to the phrase
“no…significant…impact on business”
at paragraph 12 of the explanatory memorandum. Really—when money is being taken away? Maybe that is now the Conservative line. I look forward to the Conservatives taking the same view when Labour redistributes resources in future. I suspect that there is an impact, and we all know it.
The second SI is, I think, more straightforward. It concerns measures to ensure that there is proper oversight of financial assistance. I have to say that this is interesting: where is the environmental equivalent? Perhaps the Minister will tell us, because it looks as though the integrated administration and control system and cross-compliance system are being gradually dismantled. It is telling that it is the money, not the environmental concerns, that seems to be the priority. Yet again, this measure is England-only. We really are becoming a very disunited kingdom.
Four schemes are outlined. I quite understand that, but it seems that we may have different rules applying to different schemes. This seems to be only for the environmental land management scheme pilots, so presumably it will have to be revisited at the various stages of ELMS, and we will probably have a countryside stewardship system running alongside the current EU countryside stewardship system. So, there is quite a lot of complexity. I am sure farmers will welcome advance notice being given on some of those checks, but where is the assessment of potential downsides? We all hope there is not abuse out there, but are we sure? This is quite a lenient approach. Given that enforcement is already an issue, is there some naivety here?
The virtual inspections sound intriguing and could be a good model for the future. It would be interesting to hear a little more from the Minister about how they will work.
I have a query about paragraph 10.5 of the explanatory memorandum, which says:
“Land Management Plans… will not be published.”
I recognise that that might be a response to representations made, but as I asked during consideration of the Act, where is the public voice in that? I think taxpayers and local residents have a role. I am disappointed and would like to hear the reasoning behind that.
Finally, the plan outlined remains through to 2027. Frankly, when we were discussing it in this room a year ago, no one could have anticipated the year we were about to have, and there is a question whether we plough on regardless or move at a pace that reflects the difficulties of the past year.
The schemes were all supposed to be about simplification. I was talking to someone the other day who pointed out that CAP effectively had three schemes, but, by their reckoning, we are already up to 14 and counting. We might well need a new dictionary for our conversations as we sort our ELMSs from our SFIs and our ATPs. It is all getting very complicated.
I reflect on the fact that this country has many virtues, but self-knowledge is useful, and we sometimes tend to over-complicate and over-bureaucratise. In the past, we blamed that on Brussels. It is now down to us, so my plea is, can we ensure that these schemes are simple enough to deliver the outcomes we all want? In particular, we do not want funding being taken from farmers and going not to the environment—we do want funding there—but ending up in a sea of bureaucracy.
Victoria Prentis
I, too, enjoy our ongoing dialogue on the future of agriculture, and I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of being too gloomy. As I listened to him, I wondered whether he would like to visit one of the tests and trials. There are some near his home.
There is a good wildlife trust test and trial in Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire that demonstrates well the significant environmental benefits that we think will come from our future agricultural policies. From memory, the trial involves farmers working together, and it is a good model of our mid-tier schemes. That is not precisely what we are discussing, but I think it would give the hon. Gentleman an idea of the iterative and careful process that we are going through in creating our new policies.
We have about 3,000 farmers involved in our tests and trials. The pilots we launched last week for the sustainable farming incentive are slightly different from the tests and trials in that they look to pilot the whole process, whereas the tests and trials are there to deal with specific issues and questions that we have asked farmers to test for us.
Daniel Zeichner
I would dearly like to come to see one of those—that is part of the problem of the past year—but, while I understand that those engaged in the process are probably positive about it, my worry is not for them, but for the huge number who are not engaged. That is where my concern lies.
Victoria Prentis
We are undertaking policy as we go; we are testing and trialling it as we develop it. That is innovative and not usual for Government, but I remain convinced that it is the right way to go about making these significant changes to our agricultural policy, which will affect not only how our food is produced, but what our environment looks like, is, and produces over, I hope, many years to come. It is important that we do this slowly and carefully, which is why we are testing everything so carefully as we go along.
The pilots we launched last week are there to test how the administrative aspects of the process work, whereas the tests and trials are there more to test individual aspects of the land management. With the enormous amount of outreach done by DEFRA—oh boy, have we embraced technology to do that over the past year—and the vast number of meetings and Zooms we have had with farmers, much more widely than those involved in our trials, we hope for and see all the signs that the industry is coming on board with these new policies. This is an exciting time for farming, and the more people outside the industry we can get to understand the value of that, the better, in my view.
Yes, the SI deals with payments for one year only. We did that with our eyes open, in order to retain flexibility. We know the overall envelope, and we set in November last year the direction of travel and the reductions farmers could expect. That gave them the ability to plan, but there will be further opportunities—many further opportunities—for Parliament to debate future reductions. I accept that we will be back here repeatedly as the policies develop, and I do not apologise for that, because it is right that this is an iterative, piloted process and it is right that we develop it carefully.
All the money saved will be going to farmers. The Treasury has demonstrated again and again that it is keen to support farmers in this, and I am convinced of its backing for these new schemes. The environmental element is the priority in what we are doing. We want farmers to produce food, but we want them to do so in a way that is more environmentally friendly than has been encouraged under CAP.
It is true that a large number of farmers—probably about 30%, who own about 60% of land—are already engaged in extra environmental schemes. I for one am keen always to conflate the idea of a farmer with that of an environmentalist in many cases. All we are doing is enabling, encouraging and training farmers who want to help the environment to continue to do so.
I do not think this is the place to rehearse the shape of our new agricultural policies. We are here today to talk about the financial aspects and some of the more enforcement-like aspects of the policies, but we have a clear structure, set out in many different documents. We will continue to inform both the public and the industry, slowly and carefully, as we learn from our tests and trials and our pilots.
Countryside stewardship is a critical part of what we do at the moment. We have simplified it drastically over the past year to make it a much more attractive offer for farmers to get involved in. I would say to farmers who are considering an environmental scheme but are sadly not able to be in the pilot, as not everybody can be, that they should join up to a countryside stewardship scheme. I undertake that the transfer for anybody who joins up with a countryside stewardship scheme into the new policies will be as painless and automatic as possible.
Indeed, one of the changes we are making is that there will no longer be any penalty for coming out of a countryside stewardship scheme early. We will ensure that those who are in an existing environmental scheme are not penalised, and we will make the transfer as smooth as we can.
On land management plans, one of the learnings we took from last year’s consultation was that, while they are a very useful tool, we and those we consulted with did not feel the need for them to be published. We will find many different ways to ensure that the general public are aware of what is happening on farms and where their taxpayer money is being spent. Access is a critical part of our new policies.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT AGRICULTURE (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) REGULATIONS 2021
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Agriculture (Financial Assistance) Regulations 2021.—(Victoria Prentis.)
Westminster Hall
(3 years, 8 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
Backbench business
(3 years, 8 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
Social Care Reform
(3 years, 8 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
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice, in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Members participating physically and virtually must arrive for the start of the debate in Westminster Hall and are expected to stay for the entire debate. I must also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to one another and to all of us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address, which I think has been emailed to everyone. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room. We do not have any Members in the Gallery today, but Members should speak only from the horseshoe, where the microphones are.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered social reform and the social care workforce.
It is good to have you in the Chair for this important debate, Dr Huq. I am pleased to open the debate. I pay tribute to the House staff who have enabled Westminster Hall debates to return with virtual participation.
The covid-19 pandemic has exposed the failings of our social care system. With more than 30,000 deaths of care home residents, the care sector has been hit hard over the past year. However, the fundamental problems in social care long predate the pandemic. A decade of underfunding meant that we were in a situation, even before the pandemic, where 1.5 million people were not getting the social care they needed. While social care is, rightly, the last thing to be cut by local councils, the reality is that areas that have seen half of their central funding cut since 2010 are left with little choice. Underfunding has led to fewer care packages, cuts to care packages and providers being asked to take contracts that do not even cover their costs.
One clear illustration of how this is going wrong can be found in long-stay in-patient wards, where 2,000 autistic people and people with learning disabilities are detained, at enormous cost to the NHS. One reason for that is the lack of resources in the community to support them. When local authorities cannot afford care and support in the community for autistic people and people with learning disabilities, it becomes easier to put them into inappropriate NHS in-patient units, even though community support would be cheaper and more appropriate. We also have older people forced to sell their homes because they are unable to access publicly funded care support until they have exhausted almost all their assets.
There has been much focus on care in care homes during the pandemic, due of course to the tragic death toll among people living in those homes, but we must also focus on the fact that social care is needed by working-age disabled people too, and that proposals for reform must cover their needs. In fact, one in three users of publicly funded care is under the age of 65, whereas only one in four is an older person in a care home, so the crisis in our care system affects more than vulnerable older people. It is a crisis not only of catastrophic costs, but of hundreds of thousands of people being denied the opportunity to live their lives as they would choose.
This is not a new problem. The reality is that social care has been struggling for more than a decade now. That is why the last Labour Government published a White Paper in 2010 proposing major reforms to the way social care is delivered and funded. However, once in government after the 2010 general election, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition decided to drop those proposals in favour of starting another commission on reform. That led to the provisions of the Care Act 2014, including legislating for a lifetime cap on care costs, based on the recommendations of the Dilnot commission. That would have addressed some of the issues with the social care system, although I do not think any of us believed that it was anything like the full solution. Since that change was first delayed by the new Conservative Government in 2015, we have had any number of promises of future reform.
Ahead of the 2017 election, the then Prime Minister promised far-reaching reforms but promptly abandoned them. After that election, a Green Paper was promised by the end of 2017. At the end of 2017, the cap on care costs was completely abandoned and a new deadline of mid-2018 was set for the Green Paper. That was pushed back to autumn 2018, and then to the end of 2018. In early 2019, we were told to expect a Green Paper by April 2019.
When the current Prime Minister took office, he claimed to have a social care plan ready to go, and he repeated that claim during the 2019 general election. The Conservatives’ manifesto at the last election said that they would seek a “cross-party consensus”, but they have not tried to seek that consensus. In fact, a fairly broad consensus on the future of social care has developed. Politicians from across the spectrum, including the Health and Social Care Committee and the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, have endorsed the model of free personal care as introduced by Labour in Scotland. That system is not perfect, but it should be a strong position to start from. However, rather than acting on that consensus, we are still waiting for proposals nearly 18 months after the 2019 election.
When the Minister speaks, she may tell us that the Government are working hard on their proposals and will publish them shortly. She would be the third Minister of State to tell me that since the Government dropped their commitment to the cap on care costs, and we have already missed at least 10 deadlines for reform. That simply is not good enough. We need action now, not the promise of jam tomorrow.
If there is a team of civil servants working on this issue, there a few points that they should consider in order for reform of social care to work. First, reform must deliver a fair deal for care staff. If the crisis of the pandemic showed us anything, it was that without the hard work put in by care staff our care system simply would not work, but too often care staff are underpaid, undervalued and given few opportunities to progress. To fill the more than 100,000 vacancies we have for care staff, social care needs to become a career of choice, with better pay and conditions and better training. When the average starting salary is only £15,000, it is little wonder that people are not turning to a career in social care.
As a starting point, reform should mean that all care staff are paid the real living wage, as my own local authority of Salford is now doing. We need to see investment so that the social care sector offers training opportunities and real career progression for staff, recognising their skills and experience. If we are to fill the vacancies in social care, we need a wide strategy working across Departments to recruit and train the workforce that we need.
The Prime Minister has said that he wants to end the scandal of people needing to sell their homes in order to pay for care. It is right that we should address the issue of catastrophic costs, but that cannot be the only ambition of social care reform. If all we do is end catastrophic costs, we will still have nearly 2 million people not getting the support they need. With providers struggling to make ends meet, local authorities are left with no choice but to cut budgets even further.
We need reform that expands access to social care services. Over the past five years, we have seen fewer older people receiving care every year as eligibility thresholds have crept up in response to budget pressures. Preventive care is increasingly uncommon, with intervention mainly coming after a crisis. Rather than providing low-level support to enable people to continue living independently at home, we are increasingly providing care only once there is no prospect of someone living independently.
When the Health and Social Care Committee looked at access to care, one witness, Anna Severwright, told us:
“I feel that I am not able to live a normal life. I do not have enough hours”—
of care—
“to be able to go out at the weekends and in the evenings, and do a lot of the normal things that make life worth living.”
That is not good enough. People should not see their horizons limited solely because they need social care, but with budgets under ever-increasing pressure, money for anything other than the basics of care is rarely available. There is a better way to deliver social care than 15-minute care visits, and people should not have curfews on their lives because care is not available in the evening.
As well as funding care properly, we could embrace the spirit of the Care Act 2014 and ensure that care packages meet people’s social and emotional needs as well as their physical ones. That kind of person-centred support would enable more working-age disabled people to be productive members of society while also supporting older adults to enjoy later life. At root, social care should be about supporting people to live happy and fulfilled lives without facing financial ruin.
There is a very poor level of support for unpaid carers. There are 13.6 million people providing care to a friend or family member. Without them, our social care system would not cope. Funding for respite care is increasingly hard to get. Many carers say that they would use a respite break to attend a medical appointment.
Responding to an Adjournment debate that I led last Friday, the Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health said that
“45,000 carers have received respite or other carer support delivered to the person they care for.”—[Official Report, 12 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 1212.]
We have 13.6 million unpaid carers, including 4.5 million who started caring during the pandemic. For a Health Minister to report that only 45,000 carers received respite care is an appalling record. We must do much more to support unpaid carers, and we could improve their lives by funding formal care services better.
It is now seven years since we put the Care Act into law, but the Government still have not delivered for people who use social care. After years of broken promises and delayed announcements, there is anger at the way social care has been underfunded and reform neglected. This has led to people who rely on social care going without the support they need to live fulfilling lives.
Underfunding has led to care staff being paid the minimum wage and not being given the time they need to provide high-quality care. It has also led to many thousands of people facing catastrophic costs of care, often having to sell their homes to pay for it, and over the past year it has meant 30,000 care home residents dying with covid-19. They were caught in a perfect storm of an NHS discharge policy that seeded infections into care homes before providers could implement infection control measures.
People who use social care deserve better than all of this. They deserve reform that delivers a fully funded, person-centred care system that meets their needs, and they need it now, not at some point in the distant future.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Given the popularity of the debate, and the fact that we have three Front-Bench spokespeople and a concluding statement from Barbara Keeley at the end, I am going to start with a time limit of three and a half minutes. There will be a clock visible at the side of Members’ screens, and the chaps here can pull the plug if they go over the limit. With all that in mind, I will start with Andrew Lewer.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Dr Huq; it is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship.
The pandemic has shone a light on the pivotal role that social care plays in our communities. It has, however, laid even more bare the huge pressures that the sector has been facing for the past two decades. Having been in local government since close to the start of this century, I recall papers saying how urgent reform was then, including the 1999 royal commission on long-term care, and it was a constant theme throughout my time as a county council leader. Such is the urgency now that, although a desire to get cross-party consensus on this is a welcome aspiration, it must not be used as a reason for delay.
At a time when, for all the wrong and tragic reasons, public understanding and awareness of the care sector has hugely increased, this should be harnessed to perhaps achieve a positive legacy from this pandemic, and to achieve the long-sought parity of esteem between our hard-working care sector workers and their colleagues in the NHS. Having spoken about this many times before in the House, through several Prime Minister’s questions and work on joint Select Committee reports discussing what reform should look like, I think that there needs to be an emphasis on a joined-up approach between health and adult social care, not only nationally but locally.
Throughout the pandemic, local government has stood shoulder to shoulder with the NHS in tackling coronavirus, and the Local Government Association, of which I am a vice-president, has done tremendous work in highlighting this. However, too often the two services have been placed on different footings. The past 12 months have shown, perhaps more than ever, the need for closely integrated health and social care, and I have seen the hugely positive impact that such an approach can have in my own constituency, through Northamptonshire Health and Care Partnership’s innovative Integrated Care Across Northamptonshire programme.
I therefore urge caution to any colleagues who wish to see the social care sector cut from the local authority remit and subsumed within an ever-expanding NHS. This is an overly simplistic and short-sighted approach. It is not wrong to have varying models of social care provided by different local authorities working with NHS services. That flexibility allows local services to be better through both parts of the demos: demography and democracy.
In the last Parliament, I sat on the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government, which commissioned a joint report with the Health and Social Care Committee on possible long-term funding models for social care. That report, which I commend to colleagues, specifically left the door open for insurance-style funding solutions to the issue, which have been used in countries such as Germany and Japan. It is a better approach than the usual “rising taxes will fix this issue,” especially when we bear in mind the important, if sadly unfashionable, fact that rises in tax rates do not always lead to rises in tax takes. Having recently been re-elected to the Select Committee, I am very keen that this option should be looked at once again, and I would welcome comments from the Minister on the Government’s consideration of these elements of such proposals in their final plans.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) [V]
My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) has eloquently summed up the very sad current situation we find ourselves in, so I will begin by stating the obvious: social care is in desperate need of proper levels of funding. Politicians agree that we need funding but then go on to torpedo any of the suggested solutions. When Labour produced a plan, the Tories called it a death tax, and when the Tories suggested a plan, it was rejected by the Opposition. The price of the war of words has been paid not in pounds sterling, but in the undeniable pain and hardship endured by those denied help and care. Calls for working together and royal commissions never amount to any more than words.
Although proper funding is crucial, it is not the whole story. We need a properly funded system that meets the needs of people receiving social care and that really and truly puts them first—one that is provided by a respected and valued workforce. Money will improve care only as the current system will allow. Social care reform needs to be first and foremost a transformation of the culture surrounding the social care sector. For far too long, care has been treated as the problem no one resolves. In 17 years, we have had 13 documents on social care reform, and over a decade of Tory austerity has left social care a far cry from what it needs to be. It is just not good enough in a civilised society.
The disparity between healthcare and social care only makes the problems worse. Many people in the social care sector feel that they are used as a care overflow or relief service, and that they are treated as secondary to the supposedly more important healthcare workers. On top of that, social care is not even reaching potentially hundreds of thousands with unmet needs.
The status of the social care workforce has declined and needs to be drastically improved. How can we expect underpaid, undertrained and overworked staff to give quality care? Staff turnover is huge, so we need a comprehensive workforce strategy, including proper registration and a regulatory body. That would be an important step in bringing social care workers in line with their healthcare colleagues, and in dispelling the misconception that it is a low-skill industry.
Unfortunately, the social care sector includes some unethical and unaccountable providers, who will happily reduce the standards of care, employee support and protection in the name of profit margins. Councils continue to give contracts based on the lowest price, because it works for their budgets. To many, it must seem that the system fails to directly consider the needs of the vulnerable people who rely on those services day in, day out.
We have an opportunity to put social care on a proper footing. We need to grab it with both hands and realise as a country that looking after those in need in our communities speaks volumes about our values and humanity. We need to act fast and act now.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, and to follow such excellent contributions from the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) and the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper). I completely agree with the comment just made by the hon. Member for West Lancashire: it is now or never.
Over the last two decades, we have had 12 White Papers, Green Papers and consultations, and four independent reviews and commissions. I am ashamed to say that a number of them happened when I was Health Secretary for nearly six years, and we were unable to make the progress that I wanted. In the last decade, we have had five Select Committee reports from both the Commons and the Lords.
This time is different, however, because we have just had a pandemic that has shown the whole country how amazing our care staff are and how dependent we are on a group of people who do extraordinary work on very low wages. If we are not going to fix it now, I do not think we ever will. At the same time, the ageing population has continued to age, and last year was the first in human history with more over-65s in the global population than under-fives.
The Health and Social Care Committee undertook a report on this subject last autumn. We are clear that there are three core elements to the reforms. We have to address the catastrophic care costs that see one in 10 people pay more than £100,000 and the terrible dilemma people face of losing their entire life savings to pay for their care home, when they want to leave those savings for their loved ones after they have gone. We should not be forcing people to make those choices in modern Britain.
We have to do more for the workforce, where turnover is about a third. A third of social care staff leave their jobs every year—up to 40% in domiciliary care. Many of them do not get the minimum wage because they are not paid for the time between appointments, yet we know how amazing they are.
We need more funding; we cannot duck that now. The Select Committee thinks a minimum of £7 billion is needed to deal with the catastrophic care issue, the growth in the demography and the minimum wage. We should look at models in Germany and Japan, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South rightly said, when thinking about the best way to fund that.
This is a big ask, but the country was bankrupt after the second world war in 1948 when, with cross-party support, we had the vision to set up the NHS. This is the equivalent challenge for today. It is in tune with the values of the British people. We are a kind country, but our social care system is not kind to the older people who depend on it and get 15-minute slots. It is not kind to the people who work in it.
My message to the Minister is that I know that she cares about this and that behind the scenes she is doing everything that she can, but what is the point of being in Government if not to grasp the nettle on difficult decisions that can transform the lives of ordinary people? Now is the moment to rise to that challenge.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Before examining what needs to change, I want to acknowledge the work of staff in the sector. This has a personal element for me. My dad managed nursing homes and my mum was a deputy sister in a residential home caring for people with dementia. I know how hard staff work each and every day. Pay can be low and recognition can be lacking. Likewise, the care workers who support people in their own homes do so much. We only tend to see their importance in reverse, when the lack of a placement or support prevents hospital discharges.
We need to go much further in integrating our approach. Last month I helped launch a report by Look Ahead. Unlike most of the reports that land on our desks or in our inboxes, it called for reforms that would not cost money. In fact, taxpayers would save money. Look Ahead looked at one element of integration: supported housing. It estimated that nearly £1 billion could be saved each year by extending integrated mental health, social care and supported housing services across England. The report is a robust analysis of how supported housing keeps people with mental health problems out of institutionalised care. This means more than just savings. The online launch began with a video from service users, which had the hairs standing up on the back of my neck. One man told us how it was the first time he had ever had his own private shower. He said that it made him feel like a king. These are small, but incredibly significant and humanising differences.
We know that there is not enough money to sustain the social care system as things stand. Any way to make savings, while improving outcomes, must be seized. Yet, only a handful of NHS trusts and local authorities are adopting an integrated approach. In my view, this missed opportunity comes down to culture. I am not casting aspersions; the system just is not geared towards different organisations working together. Outcomes are what matters and the goal, for most, should be to help people to live as long as possible, independently, away from institutionalised care.
Lasting reform requires not only innovation and leadership by Government, but political courage on the part of the Opposition. If social care funding is left as a political football, we know who is being kicked around. Two decades have seen at least a dozen White Papers on social care reform. The right ambitions are easy to state; it takes legislation and political will to achieve them. As we emerge on the other side of the pandemic, the need for such services will only grow. The Prime Minister has given us a road map for leaving lockdown; a road map for integrated social care would be as profound as the creation of the NHS.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), a formidable campaigner in Parliament on such issues, on securing the debate. Social care should have been at the forefront of the mind of every single Member of Parliament as we witnessed our care homes face some of the worst times during the pandemic, as carers put their own health and lives at risk to care for our loved ones. I pay tribute to them.
Let me declare an interest: I have been a care worker. It was a while ago, but things have not got better—the same challenges have gone unchecked or, sadly, are worse. I hope that I can give voice, in Parliament, to those fantastic overworked and underpaid workers.
As we have seen throughout the pandemic, it is women and black, Asian and minority ethnic workers who have risked the most and been hardest hit. To put that into context, 82% of people working in social care are women, and about 247,000 of them are from overseas.
Our social care system is beyond overstretched. We have been fighting the pandemic with 117,000 fewer care staff than we need, and absences have trebled over the past year. We need to future-proof our social care system from future pandemics. This cannot happen again. Social care has to be well paid, a secure career with the strong terms and conditions that our healthcare heroes deserve. Such people are not unskilled. I never want to hear Ministers talking about them like that again. I challenge anyone who thinks otherwise to spend a day in a carer’s shoes.
Over the past year, I have heard terrible testimonies from care workers who were told that they needed to come into work even when they had symptoms, putting at risk not just their own health, but the health of those they care for. We cannot have the obscene situation in which even in a pandemic, they only get £95.85 a week to live on for sick pay. The Health Secretary has admitted he could not live on that; we should not expect the people who look after our loved ones to live on that when they get sick either.
At the heart of any changes, we should hear from the people who need care. They should have a choice and control over who is in their life, who supports them and what the future of social care looks like.
Report after report has said that things need to change. The Health and Social Care Committee published radical proposals for social care last month, just as it did before the last election. My own party put a joined-up national health and social care service, free at the point of use, in our last manifesto, and in the manifesto before that, the one before that and the one before that. The Conservative party promised reform in 2010 and again in 2015. Then, nearly two years ago, the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street to promise,
“we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all”.
Clearly, from all the speeches today, there is the political will to fix this broken system. People should not have to give up everything in their old age because they need social care. Social care staff who fought the virus with everything they have do not need to be paid a pittance for some of the toughest work that can be imagined. People can and must have dignity. My plea to the Minister is, let us look after the people who have been on the frontline of the pandemic and work together finally to fix social care in our country.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr Huq.
I am glad we are having the debate and thank both the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) for securing it. Simply, this is one of the most important parliamentary reforms in recent years. If we can do one thing in administration before the next general election that would mean more to my constituents, it would be how we reform the social care sector, fund it properly and meet the needs of our ever-increasing older population.
People might expect me to say that, given that I am the MP for North Norfolk, a constituency with the oldest demographics in the country, but my interest is deeper than that. There can be no one who has not been touched in recent times by having a friend or relative cared for in later life. I certainly have, when my aunt gave up literally everything to care for my grandmother. Throughout the pandemic, I have wanted to raise the profile of our social care workforce and our carers—one could call it a crusade—to get hundreds of carers and unpaid carers vaccinated in Norfolk. So many are just unidentified, despite the incredible work they do and the weight they lift off the NHS.
This is a huge topic, but I will deal with just two broad areas: first, how we fund the reforms, and secondly, how we shift the perception of our social care workforce, so that we can value and perceive the workforce as the care professionals they are. Funding is a deeply complex problem where care settings vary hugely, whether that be public or private care home settings for older people, or settings for those with complex needs. Every area needs a proper footing for funding.
I asked the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions on 13 January about a long-term plan for social care—one that matches the NHS. I am pleased to hear that that is coming forward, but care is often misunderstood. We often perceive that it is just for older citizens, but it is not. Half of all social care expenditure is on working-age adults, and an estimated 1.5 million people work in adult social care across England. In Norfolk alone, there are 27,000 professionals in the sector.
The pandemic has taught us who is best at delivering those services, and I still think that that is local providers, such as through our county councils. They know the families and the individuals on the ground, they know their needs and how best to support people, but they need the funding to properly do that. I know that will be difficult, given the economic shock we are dealing with, but we cannot raise this topic without dealing with the secondary issue of the professional workforce themselves.
If we go and talk to any carer, they will tell us that they are not given the high esteem or value that they should be. That is not good enough in the 21st century. Wages, status and training should be more comparable with those of nurses if we are to properly reform the care sector and look after the growing needs of our country. How else will we be able to recruit the estimated shortfall of 120,000 carers?
Hon. Members might think that is a pipe dream, but why should it be? Twenty years ago, nurses were not esteemed as they currently are, but now it is a degree-level qualification and they are paid far better. Why should not caring be esteemed in the same way? The professionalism and skills required to care for someone with dementia or deliver end-of-life palliative care include patience like no other.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq.
Social care is in a state of crisis as a result of severe underfunding by Conservative Governments. There is very little detail about social care in the White Paper. The Government say they will bring forward separate proposals later in the year, but under the plans they have put forward, integrated care systems will be given a single budget for the health and social of their area, and an ICS will have the power to increase resources in some places and reduce them in others.
Understandably, people are concerned that they might see a reduction in the NHS or social care offer in their area and that a stark postcode lottery will emerge. What is the sense in creating a system where local NHS and social care providers will be competing with each other for funding at local level? For all the talk of joint working, that is what will happen if this is put on a statutory footing: the system will be robbing Peter to pay Paul, and levels of services and jobs within the NHS and social care will be impacted.
The White Paper states:
“There will be a duty placed on the ICS NHS Body to meet the system financial objectives which require financial balance to be delivered.”
A senior health manager explained to me that the point of having a single budget for a local health and social care system, and the requirement for the system to manage that budget, was to drive efficiencies in the system. He also told me that there needs to be a drive to reduce the number of people in hospital, and the White Paper supports such a drive. The proposals make it easier for hospitals to discharge patients by removing the legal requirement to assess patients for NHS continued healthcare and NHS-funded nursing care before they are discharged from hospital.
What about patient safety? Anyone who has experienced seeing a friend or relative discharged from hospital too early, only to have to be readmitted, knows just how serious this is. What will this arrangement mean for the millions of unpaid carers who will be asked to take over once their family member has been discharged from hospital?
The question of the social care workforce is crucial. Retention is an issue, because carers generally earn a lot less than nurses and other NHS staff. Given the duty of the ICS NHS body to find financial balance within the system, there is a concern that responsible social care employers who look after their staff and pay well will be less likely to be awarded contracts, and that there will be a race to the bottom when it comes to the pay and conditions of care workers. There is concern, too, about the influence that private companies will have on the ICS health and care partnership boards and that providers are being given the power to help to design the very services they want to deliver—representing the opportunity for direct conflicts of interest.
The Government produced their White Paper in the middle of a pandemic, when NHS and care workers are exhausted. They should call a halt to the proposals and carry out a full public consultation once, and only once, covid restrictions are lifted.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Now we go to the last man standing: Kevin Hollinrake.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I am delighted to be so. It is a pleasure to speak in the debate with you in the Chair, Dr Huq.
I am going to speak, not for the first time, in favour of a German-style adult social care premium. All the speakers today have made good points about the need to resolve the problem, but we must address it with money. The need can be supported only by a financial solution.
There are three elements to getting anything done in the world: building a compelling case; building a coalition of people; and being very persistent. I am sure that the Minister would agree that we have been persistent on this topic and its solution. There is a compelling case for an adult social care premium, which I shall speak about in a second. I think that there is a cross-party coalition forming around it. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) referred to it, as have others, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) and my friend the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), under whose chairmanship I once served on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. There is cross-party consensus that we can build on.
We have to find a financial solution. When we talk about a social care premium people say, “We have national insurance,” but that is obviously already in the tax system being used. There are huge demographic pressures that according to the Office for Budget Responsibility will drive debt to national income to 314% by 2060 unless we tackle the problems, including pensions and healthcare. All the solutions that we hear of generally involve a blank cheque from the taxpayer or the person in need of care, neither of which can be right.
The German-style system—Germany moved to it in 1995 from a local authority-provided system—means that everyone does what most people do, putting a small amount of income away every month, on a mandatory basis. It is roughly 2.4% of income, to save for later rainy days. It is a pay-as-you-go system, so everyone is covered from day one. It is done through insurance companies, so it is not taxation. They are not-for-profit insurance companies in Germany, and I would recommend going down that route as well. There is cover for people on low incomes, so that they do not have to contribute. There is also a cap for people on higher incomes so that it is fair to everyone. Germany delivered that on a cross-party basis. We have cross-party support, as I said earlier, and I worked on two cross-party Select Committee reports on the matter. The Health and Social Care Committee and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee recommended it as one of the solutions.
The key part of the solution is the social benefit, in that someone who is independently assessed as needing care can choose a service from a provider, or draw down the money personally and pay it to a friend or relative. That means that people can be cared for best by those who love them most. That is a great solution, and it is a solution for some of the capacity issues, too. It is simple, scalable and sustainable, and I heartily recommend it.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dr Huq.
The covid pandemic has thrown light on a number of holes in social care provision. That is a pressing issue not only because of the pandemic but also because an ageing population will be a huge challenge for the post-covid future. The key issue facing social care is the privatisation of so many contracts. That has led to private companies being paid by local authorities with public money, but being unable to provide an adequate amount of care for those in need.
The need for a more robust social care system was felt most acutely in my constituency during the first wave of the pandemic. It has been reported that at Aspen Court care home, 21 residents died last year between 28 March and 24 April. The loss of life during that significant period was so substantial that it needs to be investigated at a national level. My condolences are with the families of those who have been lost, who have been impacted directly by this tragedy. The care home is run by HC-One, a private company that runs many care homes across London. Staff at those care homes are delivering care in a privatised system. Questions have been raised about the level of pay, hours being worked and the quality of training available to staff.
This month, I learned that HC-One will sell 52 homes and move into more specialist care. I support the calls from GMB and other unions for the HC-One homes being sold to be brought under local authority control, and for the Government to fund the transition costs. Aspen Court is one example of the national issue of the outsourcing of adult social care, which has exposed the financialisation of chains and larger providers, often funded by private equity firms that dominate contracts across adult social care provision.
A key concern of the charity Inclusion London is that in many cases, those of working age who receive disability benefits have to use those benefits to pay for adult social care. For those whose disability is making it hard or impossible to earn money, it is completely unjust that disability allowance should be utilised to pay for care. That is why Inclusion London and others, including me, believe that we need a robust social care system provided by the Government and through our NHS.
In my constituency, the need for proper funding of social care at this time of the crisis is felt acutely. Many constituents rely on extended care offered through charity and voluntary organisations. Organisations such as Neighbours in Poplar and food banks such as First Love Foundation are filling the gaps left by the fragmentation of the social care offer. That will be compounded by the closure of a number of day care centres, which are integral to the well-being of the communities they serve. The suggested care that would replace them would rely further on the voluntary sector, which is utterly inadequate.
The overhaul of social care is needed now. The pandemic has highlighted such issues, and it is important that the Minister addresses how they will be dealt with going forward.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. The arguments are well rehearsed, the need well understood, the unfairness deeply felt and the failure exposed in countless reports, but nothing changes. Like an annual custom, the Government announce a social care White Paper to be published later in the year, but nothing ever emerges. Meanwhile, the most vulnerable families have to pay out tens of thousands of pounds, and one in 10 over £100,000, for care by underpaid, undervalued and overworked care staff, either at home or in some institution. This year, they have even been denied seeing familiar faces—imprisoned for the crime of growing old or disabled as their lives have faded into a so-called care industry that largely seeks profit out of frailty.
We must establish the core principle that the state recognises its responsibility to care with parity of esteem with the NHS. My report into care homes in York exposed the failure of governance of funded care, with a business model that protects commissioners and providers, but not residents. We cannot continue to sell the lives of our most vulnerable in the marketplace of social care. Instead, we must make a pact with people who just want to be safe and not exploited. Principle one is that the state has the duty to care. Principle two is simple: social care must be a universal benefit. None of us knows the twists and turns of life that will lead us to need help. A caring society will reach out and meet that need.
Principle three is funding—public not private insurance. As we see in healthcare and care systems around the world, the private insurance industry’s lucrative revenue has driven the sick and the frail out of health and care. Every penny must be reinvested in enhancing care. If we are ever to bring funding together, we need to have one system. We have to be honest—high-quality care costs. And a Government will pay for what they value.
Principle four is quality. First, the care must be safe. My report into care homes showed that the larger care home companies provided some of the worst care. Secondly, the care must be person-focused and meet aspiration; it should not just meet basic need or be based on ability to pay. These are our mums and dads. We need a high-quality care standard, driving up quality.
Principle five is robust accountability. Although the Care Quality Commission has its role, I have to say that it seriously needs to beef up its whistleblowing processes; commissioners of care hide under layers of contract confidentiality. We need transparency. The sequencing of the Department’s White Papers has meant that the governance White Paper has been published before we know what the social care White Paper will say. So, can the Minister give assurances that the social care White Paper will be published before the Health and Care Bill comes to the House?
Principle six is about staffing. Care professionals must be paid a professional wage, but 1.6 million of them earn less than the real living wage and a quarter of them are on zero-hours contracts. They need associated registration to keep them and the public safe. As for insecure jobs—every person needs to know that they will be loved, cared for and kept safe when they need care.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) [V]
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing this important debate and I pay tribute to her for her commitment to and advocacy for social care over many years.
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate today as a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on adult social care. Throughout most of the covid-19 pandemic, I have met on a weekly basis members of the APPG’s working group, which includes not-for-profit care home providers, home care providers and people with lived experience of receiving adult social care.
These meetings provided a valuable insight in real time into the impact that the pandemic has had on the social care workforce. I have to say that, very often, the first-hand experiences reported to me bore no relationship to the Government’s statements on social care. There was no protective ring around care homes; residents and staff contracted coronavirus and died, because they could not access personal protective equipment or testing. Domiciliary care was completely neglected. There were no protocols on managing infection risk for staff who provide care to multiple people in their own homes. People who manage their own care at home could not get access to advice or PPE. There was not the financial support to enable care workers to self-isolate when necessary, without their having to worry about how they would put food on the table.
Throughout the pandemic, the social care workforce carried on looking after our most frail and vulnerable loved ones, consoling people who did not understand why family members were unable to visit, holding hands, and comforting people as they passed away.
In responding to my written parliamentary question on whether the Government would recognise the contribution of the social care workforce during the pandemic with a payment, as the Welsh Labour Government have done, the Minister said that the Government had issued the care badge. A badge does not put food on the table, help to pay the rent, compensate for lost income due to illness or self-isolation, or help with the stress and trauma that many care workers have endured.
The pressures on the social care sector were well documented before the covid-19 pandemic, and the pandemic has only made them worse. These pressures are evident across the diversity of the sector: just 4% of local authority social care directors are confident that they have the budget to meet their statutory duties; an increasing number of contracts are being handed back to councils; there are autistic people and people with learning disabilities who are still incarcerated in hospitals because there is no funding for community provision; 1 million people are eligible for care but do not receive any at all; and there are many more people whose care package does not meet the full range of their needs.
Social care has been urgently in need of reform for a decade. There is not a route to social care reform that does not address pay for social care staff. It is a shocking and unacceptable reality that in many parts of the country it is possible to earn more in the local supermarket than it is in caring for the most vulnerable members of the community. That situation must change.
There has been no lack of detailed cross-party work on the options for social care reform. Select Committees, APPGs and independent commissions have all explored the options and brought forward proposals. The lack of delivery is the consequence of a lack of political will. That has to change. We owe it to the workforce, who have been through so much this past year, not to delay any longer.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. Social care is and has long been the poor relation of healthcare that successive Conservative Governments have promised to fix yet taken no action on. Here we are, eight years on from when the coalition Government announced and subsequently put into law a new model of social care funding based on Andrew Dilnot’s recommendations, but the Conservatives refused to implement it.
Instead, we had real-terms cuts in social care funding, and now we have yet another top-down reorganisation of the NHS that promises integration, but will do nothing to address the structural or funding reform needed in social care. The Budget, at the start of this month, did not even mention social care. Is it any wonder that most people feel that 1.5 million people with unmet care needs are just not a priority for the Government? Thank goodness for our 9 million unpaid carers, who daily pick up the slack and pay an enormous price, both financially and in their own physical and mental wellbeing, without any recognition. Where would we be without them?
Our care system, as many have already said, was already in peril pre pandemic and is even more so now. Adult social care has consistently been an afterthought for Ministers throughout this pandemic, with more than 25,000 lives lost in care homes to coronavirus and delays in securing PPE and testing for the care sector during the first wave. Many care homes are now teetering on the brink financially. The sector is crying out—with one voice, loud and clear—for a proper, joined-up workforce strategy. We have a staggering 112,000 vacancies, and one in six of the workforce are migrant workers, yet the vast majority of social care roles do not qualify under the new points-based immigration system, even after recent changes.
With 1.6 million social care workers earning less than the living wage, a quarter of the workforce on zero-hours contracts and limited career prospects, how on earth can we expect to provide decent, sustainable care for the most vulnerable adults in our country? The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) referred to our mums and dads. It is not only our mums and dads but our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters; a large number of those needing care are actually working-age adults—almost half.
It is time for urgent cross-party action. The letter from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to all MPs last March inviting suggestions for social care really does not cut it. Over the last year, the Liberal Democrats have twice formally requested that the Government initiate cross-party discussions. As the Health Foundation says:
“These problems are not intractable but solving them requires political will and government spending.”
Given the monumental challenge before us, when will Ministers make good on the Prime Minister’s promise to fix social care and invite others to the table to help develop those solutions?
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
The good news is that Members have been very good at sticking to time, so we actually have a little bit of extra time to play with. If the three Front Benchers all stick to 11 minutes, that will give the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) time to wind up the debate. First of all, we are off to bonny Scotland and Dr Philippa Whitford for the SNP.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
Thank you very much, Dr Huq. I pay tribute to social care staff for all they have done during the pandemic and recognise that they, too, suffered bereavement when they lost residents to covid who they had been looking after for a long time. Instead of sympathy, they often faced criticism and attack in the media.
Like the NHS, social care has faced huge pressures during the covid pandemic, so it was shocking that it was not mentioned at all in the Budget. While the Chancellor claimed the UK was in good shape when covid hit due to the Government’s management of public finances, it actually came at the end of a decade of austerity, with the NHS on its knees and an £8 billion social care funding gap in England alone. Service cuts had led to under-provision, with Age UK identifying that almost 1.5 million people do not get the support they need. While most think of frail, elderly people when they talk about social care, it is also critical to allow those facing end of life to be at home if they wish, and to ensure that younger people with a disability can participate fully in society.
The Government’s Green Paper, first announced in 2017, has been postponed yet again, despite the Prime Minister boasting in the 2019 election that he had a plan for social care that was ready to go. Perhaps he was mixing it up with his oven-ready Brexit plan.
More recently, we have been told the delay is due to cross-party discussions, but I certainly have not seen anything, nor apparently has the shadow Minister for Care. Several MPs in this debate have suggested that the Government should propose an insurance-based model, and Germany and Japan are often held up as examples. However, closer examination shows that both systems have increasing shortfalls and that co-payments are, therefore, growing markedly. Taxation still provides the greatest solidarity and security. The Secretary of State has announced plans to reverse some of the most damaging aspects of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and promote integration of health and social care. Of course, the devil is in the detail, and there was very little of that about social care in the White Paper.
Scotland faces exactly the same issues as the rest of the UK: an ageing population, a growing need for social care support, and the challenge of retaining and recruiting care staff, particularly with new visa requirements increasing the difficulty in recruiting from the EU. However, there are significant differences in both the provision and structure of health and social care in Scotland. After devolution more than two decades ago, the structures of the healthcare market, including hospital and primary care trusts and the purchaser/provider split, were reversed and the Scottish NHS returned to being a single public body with local services provided by geographical health boards. Since 2014, Scotland has been working on integrating the NHS with social care through the establishment of integrated joint boards. They manage half of the total Scottish healthcare budget for the provision of all community services.
Of course, covid highlighted how much further we have to go, as social care is a much more fragmented landscape. The pandemic, however, stimulated a lot of close working, including projects I was part of during the first wave. One involved colleagues from acute medicine, geriatrics and the local hospice holding online meetings with care home staff to discuss difficult cases and provide advice and training in symptom management and end of life care. The other was to try and identify unpaid carers, who often grow into the role so gradually that they do not recognise the part they play. The aim is to reach out to them when they attend their local community pharmacy and encourage them to make contact with our local carers’ hubs, where they can access support, benefit advice, PPE or even just have a chat. Due to their pivotal role, unpaid carers are now being invited to receive the vaccine.
Having been involved in redesign projects over many years as a breast cancer surgeon, it was fantastic to see the usual barriers to innovation simply collapse, and the relationships formed during the pandemic will definitely accelerate integration going forward. Due to its size and rural nature, Scotland already had significant digital health infrastructure, and video consultation systems, such as Near Me, were extended to all areas. Care homes were provided with devices and digital support to connect staff and residents to their families and, when needed, to the NHS. The Scottish Government underwrote sick pay to ensure that staff could isolate if necessary. As well as providing PPE to local social care providers, health boards offered access to NHS locum banks to reduce the need for agency staff and ensure safe workforce levels.
Scotland is unique among the four nations in having provided free personal care to those over 65 since 2002, with the provision increased in 2011 and the age threshold removed in April 2019 by Frank’s Law—named after the footballer, Frank Kopel, who developed early onset dementia. Such provision encourages people to stay at home, which most of us would prefer. Two thirds of social care is provided in people’s own homes. That means there is a need for a strong home care sector as well as residential and nursing care homes.
It is important to remember that social care is delivered by people for people, so it is critical to recognise the importance of relationships and the need for continuity, dignity and respect. Social care staff also need respect for their skill and dedication, and for what they do for those we love. Part of that recognition should be paying care staff properly for a tough job that most of us could not do.
The Scottish Government have funded the real living wage for care staff since 2017. They fund overnight sleepovers at the full rate, and they provided a 3% pay rise last year. Social care staff in Scotland have also received the same £500 thank-you payment as their NHS colleagues this month. Unfortunately, the UK Government refuse to exempt it from tax or benefit deductions.
Care staff should not be described as unskilled workers, which we hear from the Home Office, just because they are paid too little. That fails to recognise the difference between wealth and worth. As many MPs have said this afternoon, caring needs to become a career and not be a low-paid stopgap before someone gets a better job on the checkout at Tesco’s. However, this is not just about basic pay rates; it is also about overall terms and conditions and the ability to take pride in one’s work through having an ongoing, satisfying relationship with the person receiving care, not just a rushed, 15-minute transaction.
Last autumn, the Scottish Government commissioned an independent review of adult care in Scotland. The Feeley report has now been published. It proposes the creation of a national care service, with national contracts, clinical standards, training and terms and conditions, to ensure greater equity and consistency across Scotland. It promotes a human-rights-based approach for the care recipient, with the principle of seeing social care as an investment rather than just a financial burden; it should allow everyone to participate fully in society. One recommendation is that all non-residential services should be provided free, in the same way as healthcare is.
We will be the next generation of care users, whether as a recipient of care or as an unpaid carer seeking respite for a loved one. We therefore have a vested interest in reform of the structure and provision of social care in all four nations of the UK and in how the people who deliver it are trained and have access to career development, but also how they are valued. To improve the quality of social care, we must invest in those who deliver that care. Caring needs to become a profession, and a profession that is respected.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. As many others have done, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing this debate. She has been a tireless, long-standing champion of these issues, and I really do pay tribute to her for her hard work.
I think that reforming social care—along with tackling climate change—is the challenge of our generation. If we cannot sort this issue out after the horror of the covid-19 pandemic, then frankly, as policy and law makers, we should pack up and go home, because this pandemic has brutally exposed the fundamental flaws in our system of social care, on which many people who have spoken today and many people who are watching this debate have campaigned for years.
First, despite all the rhetoric, social care is still not treated as equally important to the NHS. We have only to think about all the effort and focus that went into setting up the Nightingale hospitals and contrast that with what happened to care homes. Frankly, there was not a ring of steel around care homes; that was not the case. We can think about the examples of frontline care workers saying that their PPE was requisitioned for NHS staff. I want our NHS staff to have proper PPE, but to have it actually taken from people when they were caring for some of the most vulnerable in society was appalling.
Secondly, social care and the NHS are still not seen as inextricably linked. We saw that with the discharges from hospitals into care homes without covid-19 tests, and we saw it with many care homes feeling abandoned and feeling as though they did not get the support that they needed and deserved from the NHS at the start of the pandemic.
Thirdly, our frontline care workers are chronically undervalued and underpaid. The Minister will know that of the infection control fund that went to care homes, the vast bulk went towards ensuring that frontline care workers were paid enough so that they could self-isolate if they had to have time off sick, and so that they did not have to have several jobs between care homes. Quite frankly, that should not be additional, extra funding; it should be embedded in the bottom line of funding for our frontline care workers.
Finally, the families who do the bulk of caring in this country get precious little help and support in return. Unpaid family carers have come to my constituency office absolutely broken by the pressure from the extra hours of caring that they have had to do. They tell me that they just have nothing more to give. We have to do more to support families in the longer term. I also think that the pandemic has entrenched the misperceptions about social care: that it is about only care homes, not care in people’s own homes, and that it is about only elderly people, not working-age adults with disabilities, who make up a third of the users and half the social care budget.
Of course, the immediate cause of those problems is the 10 years of cuts to local authority budgets. Local authorities have had £8 billion removed, which has meant fewer people getting help and not enough people getting the type and quality of help that they need. We know that there are longer-term problems, too. Social care was never included in the initial creation of our NHS and welfare state. Any politician who has tried to solve that problem has risked being obliterated by their political opponents. We saw that in 2010, with accusations of a Labour death tax, and we saw it with Theresa May’s Government and the accusations of a dementia tax. In the end, however, it is not politicians who suffer, but the users of social care and their families.
There is another issue that has not been touched on so far in the debate: one reason why this issue has not been grasped is that caring work is predominantly done by women and is not valued in the same way as medical care provided by the NHS. We desperately need a new settlement of investment, yes, but we also need one of reform, because putting more money into a system that is not working is not the right approach.
We need a system that works for older people and for disabled people. I want to pick up on a point that several hon. Members have made: ensuring that people do not have to sell their homes to pay for their care is an issue—an important one—but it is not the issue, because for working-age adults with disabilities, that is not the fundamental problem in the social care system. We need a system that works for both.
We need a real shift in the focus of services and support towards prevention and early intervention. I think we should have a “home first” principle and more options between care at home and care in a home. Other parts of the world have lots of different examples of housing and care being brought together, and that is what we need in this country.
We need a system that is fully joined up with, but not run by, the NHS. One thing that care users will say is that they have to tell their stories time and again to lots of different services. We cannot have that in future, because people do not see a health need over here and a care need over there; they have just one set of needs. We should design services around users, rather than getting them to fit into different parts of the system. We need to put the principle of choice and control at the heart of the system, enabling older and disabled people to live the lives that they choose, with a radically transformed, paid care workforce, and radically transformed support for families, too.
Kevin Hollinrake
I agree with virtually everything the hon. Lady has said. A funding solution is key, because in order to expand capacity there has to be more money. Does she have a funding solution for that? Would she consider a German-style system, which has cross-party support, or would she at least be willing to sit down with a number of people who support that system to engage with the idea?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman may know that I have been calling for cross-party work on this issue for the past five years. The principles are clear—we should not leave the costs to individuals alone. We should pool our resources and share risks. That is essential for the future. I do not think any sort of private insurance system works. One issue around the cap on care costs was that the Government thought a private insurance market would spring up. That was not the case, and it will not be the right solution for the future.
The Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street 19 months ago and said he would fix the crisis in social care with a plan that he “had” developed—that he had it already. It is still nowhere to be seen. Lord Bethell recently said that now is not the time to have fundamental reforms, because we are busy dealing with the covid crisis. I argue that now is precisely the time for reforms to give people hope that, after the horrors they have been through, there is a better system for the future. That is why I was disappointed not to see anything in the Budget about social care reform.
Yesterday, there was an unprecedented statement from social care leaders, who called on the Government to end years of inaction and fix the system. They said that as well as emergency funding, we need longer-term plans to make social care a cornerstone of the modern welfare state. The crucial point is the potential for social care not only to transform the lives of millions of older people, disabled people and families who use care, but to create jobs and drive economic recovery.
In the remaining minutes, I will focus on this point. We often talk about the costs of reform, but the costs of not reforming the system are just as important. First, social care has huge potential to create good quality, valued jobs in this country. We need 520,000 more frontline care workers just to meet growing demand by 2030. The Resolution Foundation rightly argues that if we want to create jobs immediately in every community—that is what we need to do to level up all parts of the country—social care is the place we should start, and I completely agree.
Secondly, investing in social care is essential if we want all families to be able to balance their work and caring responsibilities. In today’s world, with our ageing population, social care is as important a part of our economic infrastructure as the roads and the railways. When one in three unpaid family carers have to give up work or reduce their hours because they cannot get the support they need to help their loved ones, it is bad for them, because they lose their job and income; it is bad for business, because they lose their skills; and it is bad for the economy.
Finally, investing in social care is vital to make the best use of taxpayers’ money. We should not be paying more for elderly people to be stuck in hospital when they could be cared for in the community and at home. As we seek to get our public finances back on a more sustainable footing, value for taxpayers’ money is essential. This issue is the biggest challenge of our generation. I hope the Minister will tell us when the Government will introduce their reforms, because reforming social care is not just a matter of social justice, but an economic necessity.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Finally, the last of the all-female Front Benchers, Minister Helen Whately.
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and her co-sponsor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, for securing this debate on the important and interconnected subjects of social care reform and the social care workforce.
The 1.5 million people who make up the paid social care workforce, and the 5.4 million unpaid carers, do the most wonderful thing—caring for people, whose lives depend on what they do. It is a service not just to those individuals, but to the whole country, and never has that been more true than during this cruel pandemic. Yes, our social care system needs reform. It has needed it for decades, and my party committed to that in our election manifesto. The pandemic gives us a moment in time; if not now, when? The pandemic has delayed our work, but I reiterate the Government’s commitment to bringing forward plans for social care reform this year.
This has been a really good debate, with many well-informed contributions from across the parties. I will mention just a few of them. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South talked about the long-term nature of the problems with social care; the fact that the system is as important for those of working age as it is for older people; and the importance of unpaid carers.
The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey, talked about the catastrophic costs faced by one in 10 people, who end up spending over £100,000—using their life savings—on their care, and about the problem of high turnover in the care workforce. I thank him for his recognition of my personal commitment and the work I am doing, largely behind the scenes, on social care reform.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) drew on his experience in local government, going back around 20 years, if my maths is right. He spoke about the need for closely integrated health and social care. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) draw on his personal knowledge, as I have heard him do with great value before. I very much look forward to reading the report on supported housing that he mentioned, and I will look it up. This debate would have been missing something if my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) had not mentioned the German system as one for us to consider as we work on proposals for reform.
I will set out some of the support we have given to social care and the social care workforce over the last year, because it really is quite different from anything that has been done by Government for social care before. I also want to pick up on several points that hon. Members made during the debate.
At the start of the pandemic, we identified carers, both paid and unpaid, as essential workers or key workers. That was in recognition of how crucial they are, but also so that they could access support, such as places at school for their children when schools were closed, or priority slots at supermarkets. We made it clear, in guidance and communications to care providers and local authorities, that care staff should receive full wages if required to self-isolate because of covid. That has been one of the uses allowed for the infection control fund, which to date has amounted to £1.4 billion in ring-fenced funding for social care.
To the point made by the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who spoke about care workers being told to work despite having symptoms, that absolutely should not have happened. I have heard of a small number of cases and have investigated, and work has been done to stop that happening. It has been made very clear to care providers that nobody should come into work with symptoms. The Government’s funding was provided specifically so that care workers would not have to worry about lost earnings in the event that they were either covid-positive themselves, or required to isolate as a contact. In addition to that, in January we provided a further £120 million to boost the social care workforce and help providers that faced staff shortages, particularly as a result of staff sickness and self-isolation.
During the pandemic we have also provided free PPE, which runs through to June. We have provided millions of tests to identify covid cases in social care, protecting staff and those who receive care. I was disappointed to hear the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), suggesting that there was some form of requisitioning of PPE from social care by the NHS. When I heard stories about that, they were investigated, and the investigations simply did not bear that suggestion out.
On vaccinations, as we started the herculean task of rolling out vaccinations across the country, we put care home residents and staff in the highest priority group. Thanks to the dedication and hard work of so many people, by the end of January we were able to offer vaccinations to all residents in over 10,000 care homes for older people. More than 90% of residents and over 70% of staff have now been vaccinated.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) talked about how the pandemic had affected social care workers, including how some social care workers have been bereaved by the sad loss of those they cared for. She is absolutely right about that being a hard part of the experience of the care workforce. I have talked to many care workers over the last year and knowing that they have been facing that during the pandemic has been a real concern to me. I have spoken to employers about this, and many care providers have put in resources—access to counselling and mental health support, for instance—to support their staff to cope with what they have been going through. In government, we have worked alongside the NHS and brilliant organisations such as the Samaritans, Hospice UK, and Shout to provide a package of emotional, psychological and practical resources for the workforce, which includes support helplines and guidance and specific support for registered managers in care homes.
I want social care to have a stronger voice in our health and care system and more visible leadership. That is why, in December last year, we appointed Deborah Sturdy as the first chief nurse for social care. Deborah is providing that leadership. She is already a galvanising force, particularly in supporting infection prevention and control, which must continue, even with the high levels of vaccination that we have.
Hon. Members spoke about vacancies in the care sector and the problem of staff turnover. I am well aware of the challenges for social care employers and how some do struggle to recruit and retain the staff they need in both care homes and the domiciliary care sector. We are and have been supporting the sector with a national recruitment campaign across broadcast, digital and social media, highlighting the vital role that the social care workforce has played during the pandemic, along with the longer-term opportunities of working in care. We are working with the Department for Work and Pensions, and I am working with ministerial colleagues in that Department to promote adult social care careers to jobseekers. I am hearing directly from care providers that they are seeing people taking up those jobs in care and discovering the rewards of care work. However, I am clear that that alone is not the solution to the challenges of having the workforce we need in social care and that, as part of our reforms, we must also focus on what is needed to develop and support the social care workforce.
I turn to social care reform. The Government are absolutely committed to the reform of the adult social care system. As I have said, we will bring forward proposals this year. Despite the challenges of the pandemic, we have been gearing up for the reform so that, as we build back better, we have a system that is fairer and fitter for the future. I assure hon. Members that the work has already begun. In fact, our White Paper, published last month, sets out plans for a health and care Bill that will both further integrate health and social care services and improve the oversight of how social care is commissioned and delivered for people. The Bill will also allow us to get better data on what is going on at a local level so that we can follow the evidence about what works.
The enhanced assurance framework set out in the White Paper will introduce an independent voice through the CQC, with clear and consistent oversight of adult social care, supporting local authorities to improve the outcomes and experience of people and their families in accessing high-quality care and support. That is only the beginning. For the long term, we want a sustainable adult social care system that meets people’s needs and aspirations and gives them the care and support that they need to live life to the full. We want to empower recipients of care and support people to live independently in their own homes and communities for as long as possible. We also want to improve the information provided to the public about the social care system, enabling people to plan for their care and make more informed choices. A stable and well-qualified workforce is central to our ambitions for social care.
Kevin Hollinrake
The Minister is doing a fantastic job on this issue, which is one of the biggest issues that faces us. If this is not going to be a blank cheque for the taxpayer or for the recipient of the care, does the Minister agree, as I think the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) did, that there has to be a pooled solution, perhaps like the German-style system of social care premiums?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I will not be drawn into further detail about the system at this point. The questions about funding lie with the Treasury rather than with the Department of Health and Social Care. We want to tackle the problem of the catastrophic costs of care that a minority of people face, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee. I emphasise that we have made the commitment that no one who needs care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. How we do that is indeed part of the reform work.
As we emerge from the pandemic, we will continue talking to stakeholders, pivoting the many conversations that we have been having about covid to more conversations about reform. Our reforms will be informed by a wide range of voices, not only colleagues and experts in the sector but also care providers, the workforce and those with lived experience of the care sector.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this important debate. I know that everyone who has spoken is deeply committed to their support of the social care workforce and reforming social care. The Government are on the case to make that happen. I take this final opportunity to thank all of those on the frontline providing care—people who go the extra mile to care for our loved ones, day in and day out. Carers have been truly remarkable throughout this pandemic. It is for them and the people they care for that we must move forward with the much bigger plans for the reform of social care.
Barbara Keeley [V]
I am glad that we have, through this debate, paid tribute to the care staff who have been on the frontline of the pandemic and who have stepped up and done a fantastic job. My hon. Friends the Members for Luton North (Sarah Owen) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) did that and many other contributions highlighted it too.
From the debate, I would say that there is a real cross-party commitment to improve the pay and conditions, the training and the career progression of care staff, but we have a long way to go to do that. I am glad that a number of hon. Members talked about the important role of unpaid carers. I have recently highlighted the fact that our millions of unpaid carers were not mentioned once in the White Paper on health and social care. That must be addressed because they are partners in care.
I join others in thanking all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate. I believe there is cross-party support for reforming social care so that it delivers better for the people who need social care, for the care staff who deliver it and for unpaid carers who would rely on it if it were better than it is.
I thank the Future Social Care Coalition and other campaigners for their support and briefings ahead of the debate, and the House of Commons Library for its briefing. I cautiously welcome the Minister’s promise that the Government are working on reforms and will bring them forward this year. I hope that is not another promise that ends up being broken.
As I said at the start of the debate, we have seen too many broken promises and everyone involved in social care deserves better than what we have. As the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) both said, if we cannot fix this system now, after the terrible year for the care sector during the pandemic, then we never will. Let us grasp that opportunity.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered social reform and the social care workforce.
World Social Work Day
(3 years, 8 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
Derek Twigg (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 be suspensions between each debate. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall or, in this case, in the Boothroyd Room. Members are expected to remain for the entire debate. I must also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. 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 they use them and before they leave the room.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered World Social Work Day 2021.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, as I move this motion in celebration of World Social Work Day and of Social Work Week.
In 1989, when the Children Act 1989 came into force, I was doing my work experience at the long-abolished Mid Glamorgan County Council, in the children’s services department. That was the first time in my life when I had an insight into the work of our qualified social workers, who help many of the most vulnerable in our society. For many of us in politics, it will have been through service in local government that we had the opportunity to see how their work can help to transform the lives of our constituents, often at their darkest moments.
Research across the UK indicates that even in those places where the most residents have some form of assistance provided through our social care system, fewer than one in five of the people we serve will ever, in the whole course of their life, come into contact with our care system. That is important, because unlike the work of the police service, our military, GPs and people who work in hospitals, most of our constituents will not come into day-to-day contact with what social workers do. That work is done with children at a difficult time in their lives, when they need professional intervention; adults with learning difficulties in particular who need support as they make their way in life; and people who are older, facing a period of frailty, who need to access the support of the state and for whom our social workers are often, genuinely, an emergency service.
Of course, we have to recognise that for a parent whose family is facing great difficulty, the knock on the door by a social worker is not a welcome moment in life. Far too often, there is a sense of fear and anxiety that it means the threat of their children being taken away, or of being held to account for what is going on in the privacy of their household. To people facing great difficulty in old age, social workers might be perceived as the gatekeepers telling them that they cannot access services, support and finance from the local authority, rather than as an aid to help. In the postbags that we Members of Parliament receive, that side of social work is often reflected.
When I consider my experiences in my time in local government, however, I remember the reprovision of a residential centre of adults with disabilities. The local authority and the team of social workers who knew those people—generally, adults in their 40s with Down’s syndrome—extremely well proposed a new way to give them independence, to provide them with support to live in their own homes, to access work and to travel independently. There was huge fear among the parents, many of whom had been told when their now adult children were very young that they would never grow up because of the limitations of the disease. They told me, “We are afraid that as a consequence of what is happening, our children will die.” I remember meeting some of those parents a year later, and they said, “I never realised that this young person I’ve been responsible for would be living independently, would have a job and their own front door, and would be travelling on the bus and the tube.” That was the crucial difference that good-quality social work had made to their lives. A professional approach, understanding what people can do and not what they cannot, and patient work with them brought about a transformational change in the circumstances facing those young people.
When we consider the huge growth in the numbers of children who are on child protection plans and are specifically referred to local authorities because of concerns, we can see the difference that good social work makes, especially if we look at the care system. The longer a child spends in our care system and the earlier they go into that system, the better their outcomes are—for example, children who are adopted at birth tend to have outcomes that are entirely in line with their peers. Where social work is not always able to make the difference is for those young people who may have spent a long time at home or in a chaotic family situation, where intervention comes late—perhaps in their teens—and where there is only a very short period to turn that situation around.
Again, we see the evidence that good social work can make a huge difference in the lives of children, young people, adults, and the elderly. For most of our constituents, the most frequent form of contact with social work is in old age, when there is the need to access services from a local authority, perhaps in preparation for discharge from hospital to ensure that a person is safe and able to return to their own home. For all these reasons, we can recognise that in our society today social work, while it is not as glamorous and it does not have a flashing blue light attached to it, is absolutely crucial to keeping our society together and providing support to people at their most vulnerable moment.
I put on the record my thanks to, and my pride in, the work of the social workers for whom I was responsible during my time as a lead member of Hillingdon Council. I also thank the British Association of Social Workers for the work that it does to raise the profile of social work and make sure that more people in our country gain an understanding of what it can do, in order to contribute to an informed debate, recognition of the importance of social work, and—in the context of parliamentary work—ensuring that, in concert with our NHS, we have a joined-up system that is properly resourced and able to fulfil the expectations that our residents have.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for having secured this significant debate. I am not used to being so high up on the call list, but I very much appreciate it.
For as long as I have been involved in children and family social work, I have only ever known children’s services to be under immense pressure. I say this because unless a person is part of this area of work, the crucial role of children and family social work can be easily misunderstood, and not enough politicians understand children and social services. That is probably why there are so few of us taking part in this afternoon’s debate, which is disappointing. These services have been undervalued and not invested in for many years; they have been cut year on year.
I became a children and family social worker in 1995. I first worked in the emergency duty team, then went on to work with children in need before moving to work in a looked-after children’s team. The red tape and bureaucracy have increased, and the majority of social workers’ time is spent at the office, completing reports and filling in forms, as legislative and policy changes have been made. Obviously, those changes have often been in the best interests of the child, but they have meant that social workers have been increasingly kept away from spending more time with the child.
In my seven years’ experience of working for a local authority, there were five reorganisations. This can be really distressing for staff—having to be re-interviewed and, in many cases, seeing their posts being deleted, changing, or even moving buildings. When support is removed and cuts are made to admin posts or specialist workers’ posts, all of this adds to the caseload of the social workers. Where social workers’ posts are cut, caseloads increase, and what is often overlooked is where the children are in this: the child is supposed to be paramount, but less time is spent with the child.
All of this needs to be rethought, and there needs to be a whole new way of thinking about how to do children and family social work. Every time the Government make cuts to local authorities and the NHS, children’s service provision is affected—the cut is passed on to the child. Fewer social workers and managers and increased caseloads mean less time and less interaction with the child, and less support for them and their families. Cuts also mean a lack of resources and longer waiting lists, causing delays.
I have nothing but admiration for social workers—children and family social workers and social workers across social care sectors within our society. They have one of the most highly stressful jobs. They must be valued, and to value them we must invest in them.
For someone starting in their role as a social worker, it is about supporting families to be healthy, to be happy and to stay together as well as is possible, though sometimes that is not possible. I remember the case of a complex and lovely young person; I had been her social worker for more than three years, but when she turned 16, I was told I had to transfer her to the young persons’ team. She protested vehemently and was vile to me verbally due to the loss, but I completely understood. I knew she was hurting and did not want that level of separation. That is a concern because as legislators we should be flexible. We need to have her and other children’s best interests in mind, and sometimes that means being flexible with our services and ensuring they are not lost while we are focusing on what is best for our institutions or sometimes for the team.
There was another boy I worked with; he was five years old and I worked with him for three years. I remember when I became the senior social worker, he said to me, “If you are becoming the senior social worker, does that mean you’ll still be my social worker?” His case shows the lack of flexibility sometimes within the service. I should have been able to carry on being his social worker, and he should have had continuity of the support he was enjoying at that time. Social services should not be built around institutions; they should be built around the child. We need to ask us ourselves whether the welfare of the child is really paramount, or whether we need to rethink how we do children and families social services. We really need to get this right, because we want children in need and in care to grow up to be well adjusted and to have a bright future.
As I have already stated, the social work profession has always been under immense pressure, but the pandemic has made that even worse. The social work profession is in crisis. Working conditions have got worse compared with what I knew them to be before. The British Association of Social Workers found that 77% of social workers who responded to the survey on working through covid-19 felt that the lockdown restrictions had made it much harder to safeguard adults and children. Many respondents felt there was a definite increase in people being referred to social services. Capacity was already stretched, but the past year has brought it to breaking point. Social workers must be protected from burning out. They have valuable views on how services can be transformed for the better, and they must be part of framing a more effective service for the future.
There were also calls for more capacity to focus on tackling violence against women and girls. That issue has come up in the public spotlight after the tragic events of the past few weeks, but it is something social workers are constantly dealing with. Social work practice frameworks must reflect the areas in greater need of attention, and local social services must have the ability to specialise in the problems affecting their communities—for example culture-specific discrimination or gender-based violence.
With problems in staff retention and growing caseloads, social services remains in crisis. Earlier this week, on the Justice Committee, I spoke to the chief executive officer of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, who said that we need to rethink and to reinvest in children’s services. I absolutely agree with her.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby).
It will come as no surprise that I will focus my comments today on children’s social workers and the constant, dangerous attempts by the Government to dismantle children’s social care services so that they are ripe for private takeover. Social workers know that once that happens, profit becomes the overriding principle and care becomes an afterthought or an add-on. We have seen that in adult social care, and we are already seeing it in fostering and residential children’s care, where vast profits are made for shareholders on the backs of vulnerable children and adults.
In 2017, the Government proposed allowing local authorities, under the guise of innovation, to opt out of protective legislation for children. After a groundswell of cross-party objection inside and outside this place, the changes comprised in a whole chapter of the 2017 Act were removed at the 11th hour. In 2019, the then Minister disseminated a dangerous “myth busting” document advising local authorities to dispense with statutory guidance in relation to the most vulnerable children. That attempt to deregulate and wipe away hard-fought-for protective legislation for children was eventually quashed, and the document was withdrawn.
Last year, shamefully using the pandemic as an excuse to force through deregulation once again, the Children’s Minister with the stroke of a pen wiped away protective legislation for children through the Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020—statutory instrument 445 of that year. Despite efforts from across the House to scrap that dangerous statutory instrument, it remains in force today. It is no coincidence that nearly 80% of social workers have reported to the British Association of Social Workers that throughout lockdown their concerns about safeguarding vulnerable adults and children have increased, and that early intervention and help is not readily accessible.
Recently, the Government commenced their long promised once-in-a-generation review of children’s social care. That review that is already shrouded in controversy and immense hurt and upset has been caused to those in care and the care experience community by the outright rejection of hundreds who applied to share their valuable views and insights into the care system. The independence of the chair has rightly been called into question—a chair who never opposed the attempts from 2017 onwards to deregulate, and who has already produced a blueprint for children’s social care that slants towards deregulation which was developed in isolation from those who receive or have experience of care. The chair has no professional background in social care at all.
The appointment led in February this year to a letter signed by a wide range of respected organisations expressing those concerns, as well as concern about the rushed timescale of the review, and requesting that it be conducted in a more inclusive, collegiate way. Since then it has been revealed that the review’s recommendations will be formulated working alongside people with a financial background and Government Departments. Also, the recommendations, crucially, cannot be predicated on any extra funding at all. Social services do not exist in a vacuum. What happens in wider society impacts more acutely on the profession than on others. Millions of children live in poverty and destitution, the attainment gap is growing supportive services are being dismantled and the number of children in care is at a 10-year-high of nearly 80,000, yet the Chancellor made no mention of the £800 million gap in children’s social services in his Budget.
Social workers are rightly worried about their future and the welfare of the children they work with if local authority public sector children’s social services are further eroded, replaced or diminished, and the current model is outsourced for a profit-driven one. Social workers have been the forgotten workforce throughout the pandemic, but they have remained strong in the face of attacks on our profession and in the face of those who aim, as the Government do, to diminish and trample over our core values and principles of social justice, respect and integrity.
Social workers are the bravest, strongest and most principled people I know. I want them to keep making a difference and keep changing the world. I know that most of us in this place will never see or fully understand what they do—but I do. I have images and stories etched in my mind and heart that haunt me and will stay with me for ever. I promise social workers and the families that they work with that I will always be their champion in this place.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) [V]
It is a privilege for all elected Members here today to have the opportunity to voice our thanks and gratitude to social workers and care workers across the nations of the UK, and celebrate the contributions that they make to a fairer and more just society for us all. There are more than 100,000 social workers in the UK and they reside in every community in every constituency, including my own. Their work is at the heart of all social, cultural and political environments.
The celebrations this year are in many ways more significant than in other years. Undoubtedly, the pandemic has highlighted the invaluable work of the entire social care workforce, who, in the most challenging of circumstances, have continued to provide care and support to our most vulnerable. The Local Government Association heard excellent examples from the children’s residential sector, such as staff moving into children’s homes full time to support them where cases of coronavirus were suspected. Social workers and colleagues across all adult and children’s services should be commended for their determination to keep children safe and well throughout this crisis.
I speak today on behalf of the SNP, but I am sure I speak on behalf of all Scotland when I say to social workers: we thank you for your efforts, we thank you for your commitment, and we thank you for looking after our nearest and dearest when we, sadly, could not be there ourselves.
While we celebrate the good work and commitment of social workers, it would be remiss of us not to take note of the challenges that remain in the sector, particularly in the light of the pandemic. The British Association of Social Workers carried out a survey of young members, and I will highlight some of the key statistics. Some 79% of social workers agreed that intervention and early help for vulnerable adults, children and families is still not readily accessible, while a further 77% agreed that their experience of working under lockdown restrictions has increased their concerns about the capacity to safeguard and protect their clients.
Those startling statistics are coupled with the real-life experience of many of my constituents who contacted me to highlight their concerns. They have spoken of the difficulties of working in a landscape defined by budget cuts, staff shortages and resources at an unprecedented low. One constituent notes:
“Every day, we are questioning our ability to keep going, working 14-hour days, feeling like the problems of this sector are so entrenched that what we do, on an individual basis, can’t possibly make a difference.”
The impact of cuts to this sector is affecting not only the workforce; it has had a staggering impact on those who should benefit from their work. Our poorest communities are becoming alienated and disconnected, with faith in social care policies and practices eroding. Many families continue to have unfavourable experiences with the social work system, particularly shared parents and kinship carers, who often miss out on the full benefits of the support available. Single fathers, for example—I speak as one—often face prejudice in the system and are let down by those they rely on for support.
We meet here today as legislators, and it is only right and proper that we consider this debate as part of our societal contribution to this sector. It cannot be denied that we are at an important crossroads for the social work sector, and it is time for a radical rethink of our approach to this profession. I begin by asking this vital question: why should we leave all this work and support to our public workers? A nation’s duty of care that it owes its citizens and its welfare approach need to be underpinned by social cohesion.
The theme for this year’s World Social Work Day is centred on the importance of human relationships, yet child protection services have in a lot of cases lost the trust of the communities in which they work. This will take time and commitment to regain and repair. We should encourage more time and freedom to be given to this sector to form meaningful human relationships with those whom it supports, and for it to be given the opportunity to be located directly where it is required most, within our most deprived communities. The child protection system, as it stands, demands that up to 80% of time is spent on administrative tasks, with only 20% available for direct work with children and families. The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) shared some of her hands-on experiences of that, which I am sure we all agree were illuminating.
Social work is not a job and should not be seen as a job; it should be viewed, like so many other professions, as a vocation. Social work is not meant to be unforgiving and inhumane; it should be a support network that allows every recipient to achieve their full potential. Social work is not about working against communities; it is about working with communities, in tandem and collaboratively. On World Social Work Day 2021, I reach out to those in positions of power and influence across the Governments to say that support for our children and families should be a basic right, and that Government funding should reflect that. To our social care workforce, I make a call to action. We all have a responsibility to shape and influence the services that we deliver, and to work towards a more humane, more human and more just way of working.
The future of social work lies with empowering ourcommunities, in a collaborative approach among multiple support organisations and agencies, and in localised Administrations that can ensure that tailored assistance is provided to those who are most disadvantaged. Herein lies the big issue: the sovereignty of Administrations. From a Scottish perspective, we need full powers to make a permanent change and to tackle the main issues that drive the plight of service users in Scotland. The main factors that drive adverse childhood experiences in Scotland are food and fuel poverty, and alcohol and substance abuse and dependency, coupled with high rates of unemployment.
We have made great strides, but more can be done—more must be done—and we can offer more protection. But without the opportunity to redefine our response to drug dependency and other problematic issues, we will continue to struggle to find the answers required to force the real changes that are required in order for care to be truly effective, person-centred, fair, just, compassionate, dignified and respectful. These are all principles by which a social security system would operate in an independent Scotland and they will be at the very heart of every decision that we take. It will be a system to liberate.
If a global pandemic that has crippled our nations’ economies is not the reason to have a stern look at how we as Governments support our citizens in need, then what is? On this world-renowned World Social Work Day, taking that look is the greatest gift that we can give our much-valued, much-loved and much-needed public service workers.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) on securing this important debate on World Social Work Day. He will not know it, but my parents grew up in Pinner, so I know at least part of his constituency fairly well.
I start by thanking the 100,000 social workers in the United Kingdom, including 320 in Leicester, the city that I am extraordinarily proud to represent. I thank them for their hard work, passion and commitment over all the years, but especially during the horrors of the covid-19 pandemic.
Social workers work at the heart of our communities to support millions of people, in order to improve those people’s chances in life. They work with people who have learning disabilities, autistic people and children at risk. They support families where there is domestic abuse and mental illness, and those people who do not have the mental capacity to make their own decisions. That means that social workers can be found across many different sectors and many different services, from residential care homes to hospitals and children’s homes, and in local authorities, charities and the community.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) have already said, social workers have faced huge extra pressures during the covid-19 pandemic, which come on top of a decade’s worth of cuts to local council budgets— £8 billion pounds has been removed, putting extra pressures, stresses and strains on social workers, who were already reporting burnout and stress.
As many hon. Members have said, the latest survey from the British Association of Social Workers has clearly demonstrated concerns that more people need help and support from social work, but also that it is much harder to get help and support, especially—this is absolutely critical—the up-front early intervention and preventive care and support that is so crucial to prevent problems from getting even worse and ending up in an emergency, which is not good for families and actually ends up costing the taxpayer far more money. In particular, the survey showed that almost eight out of 10 social workers say that they are increasingly concerned about safeguarding children and vulnerable adults during lockdown. That is a real concern as we begin to emerge from the pandemic. What are we going to do? Where is the plan and strategy to tackle and deal with those issues that we know have been building up during lockdown?
To add to those points, social workers in Leicester say how isolating working from home has been during our year-long lockdown—in fact, in Leicester we have never been out of lockdown—and how much they have missed their colleagues. Those relationships are vital, both professionally and personally. To deal with the problems caused by lockdown, social workers have also had to be benefit advisers, furniture finders, and food bank directories. They feel undervalued compared with organisations such as the NHS, the police and the other services that the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner mentioned, when they are all trying to work as one system and one team across so many different organisations. In future, we really need to focus on the importance of identifying strengths in families and communities, rather than focusing only on deficits and problems. I think that is something that we in politics could all learn from, quite frankly.
In the rest of my speech, I will focus on the three really big issues that we need to tackle in order to improve the lives of our constituents and the lives of people with whom social workers work day in, day out. First, we urgently need to tackle rising rates of poverty, particularly child poverty. The vast majority of parents in poverty are doing their very best to support their children, but for those who are already struggling, poverty makes things much harder. In reality, even before the pandemic struck, more than 4 million children in this country were growing up in poverty, including 12,000 in my constituency alone. Once housing costs have been taken into account, more than 40% of children in Braunstone, Abbey and New Parks are growing up in poverty.
Since the pandemic struck, more than 2,500 children across Leicester have had to claim free school meals. The number of people claiming universal credit has doubled, and there has been a 300% increase in the number of people using food banks, as I know only too well from my role as chair of Feeding Leicester—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields is really involved in the Feeding Britain organisation. They are not just people who out of work; they are in work but on very low incomes, and they just cannot afford to put food on the table.
We are seeing some appalling examples of the levels of need in our city from the work that we have been doing on our winter grant. Increasing numbers of people need help with the absolute basics of living, such as food and paying for their gas, electricity and water, and we have had an increasing number of claims for duvets that people can put on their beds and for coats to put on their children’s backs. In the 21st century, in one of the richest countries in the world, that is a national disgrace, and it does not have to be that way.
The last Labour Government lifted more than 1 million children out of poverty, and President Biden’s covid recovery plan in the US will halve child poverty—that is absolutely essential. If we want to build back a better future for our country, and if we want to level up in every part of the country for all our constituents—especially those with whom social workers work day in, day out—tackling child poverty must absolutely be a priority. I look forward to hearing the Government’s plans on this issue when the Minister responds.
Secondly, I want to focus on a point that has rightly been made by the British Association of Social Workers: an unacceptable number of people with learning difficulties and disabilities are still in hospital settings and assessment and treatment units because there simply is not enough support in their home communities. The association says that must be a priority for the future, and I agree.
It has been 10 years since the appalling scandal of Winterbourne View, when the BBC’s “Panorama” programme exposed the shocking, and indeed criminal, treatment of people with learning disabilities in that institution. At the time, 3,400 people with learning disabilities were in long-stay institutions. The Government promised more than half of them would be moved into the community by 1 June 2014, yet by November 2014 the Government had failed to achieve that—there were still 2,600 people in these hospital units. I vividly remember that, because it was the first ever urgent question I asked as the shadow Minister for Social Care.
The review by Sir Stephen Bubb called for urgent action to tackle this problem, which the Government again promised to deliver, this time by 2016. At the time, I said that the missed deadline was a total disgrace, and that I feared Sir Stephen Bubb’s review risked gathering dust alongside all the other reviews. I am sad to say that this has proved to be the case, despite all the promises and all the reviews. I say to the Minister that despite the Government’s Transforming Care programme, in September 2020 the CQC found that there were still more than 2,000 people with learning disabilities in assessment and treatment units. Many are subjected to, “undignified and inhumane treatment, including prolonged seclusion and unnecessary restraint”.
This is one of the worst examples of a failed policy that I have seen in more than 25 years of working in the health and care sector. We need leadership, grip and focus from Ministers and NHS England. Crucially, we need the views of people with learning disabilities and autism, and the views of their families and social workers, to drive fundamental and lasting change. I hope that the Minister will set out what the Government are doing and will continue to do in order to tackle this issue.
Finally, there is an urgent need for the Government to bring forward longer term plans for reforming social care—an issue we talked about just minutes ago in the previous Westminster Hall debate. More than 19 months ago, on the steps of Downing Street, the Prime Minister promised to fix the crisis in social care with a plan he had already developed. That plan is still nowhere to be seen. There was nothing in the Budget on these vital long-term reforms. The Minister says that the Government will bring forward these plans this year, but that is what she promised last year. I hope that when she stands up she will set out why we should believe that it will be different this time around.
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. It is also a great pleasure to reflect on World Social Work Day, which was on Tuesday, and to celebrate the vital role of social workers within our communities and our health and care services across the country. I would also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for securing this debate on such an important topic. He brings a wealth of experience in this area, particularly from his time in local government, and he spoke eloquently about the importance of social work and the difference that social workers can make.
We have around 96,000 social workers practising across the country. For adults, 19,000 of them do so within local authorities and the NHS, and there are around 32,000 social workers working with children and families. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), for the brilliant work that she does supporting children’s social work. Many thousands of social workers are also supporting people at the heart of our communities, in charity and voluntary organisations and in the independent sector, and many others are engaged in vitally important research. Wherever they work, social workers are helping people receive the care they need to live more independent, more fulfilled and happier lives.
The theme for this year’s World Social Work Day was inspired by the Zulu word “ubuntu”, which translates as, “I am because we are.” This speaks to our individuality, but also to the strength we draw from others. Social work, wherever it is practised in the world, is about forging and strengthening connections between individuals, families and our wider communities. Ubuntu is therefore a particularly apt concept.
As we look back over the past year, we reflect on how the pandemic—isolating and disruptive in so many ways—has also, almost counterintuitively, spurred us to break down barriers. Barriers have melted away between professions, organisations and services, as closer connections have been forged out of necessity and from the desire to do the right thing.
Coronavirus has upended all our lives, but closer collaboration has been a vital part of the response. Parts of our recently announced health and social care White Paper have been inspired by, and will build on, that collaboration.
Social workers occupy a unique position in our health and care system. Often, they are the linking professionals between clinical and care services, helping to create and maintain a wider network of support, with the individual’s needs, aspirations and right to choose at the centre. For that reason, it is my sincere belief that social work’s core values have helped us to rise to the unique challenges posed by covid-19. Social workers have responded rapidly to huge pressures and changing needs. They have remained on the frontline to support those shielding and those at higher risk of infection, including people needing safe discharge from hospital.
Meanwhile, our chief social workers for adults have played a vital leadership role in guiding local government and national Government’s response to the pandemic. They have reminded Government of the importance of human relationships, maintaining connections and asking the questions that need to be asked. Under Fran Leddra and Mark Harvey’s joint stewardship, social work’s values and grass-roots perspectives have been writ large in the work of the covid-19 social care taskforce, the winter plan and, now, our post-pandemic recovery planning. The ethical framework that the two social workers produced at the outset of the public health crisis has provided a strong foundation for those endeavours and many others, both centrally and across the regions.
I pay tribute to the principal social workers network. That alliance of highly experienced senior social workers has worked closely with Mark and Fran to maintain a strong link between central Government and the local delivery of social work. That is a valued relationship that we want to build on and continue to learn from. We know how vital social work is in the provision of mental health services; the essential role of approved mental health professionals, or AMHPs, enshrined in the Mental Health Act 1983, is almost wholly undertaken by social workers.
As part of World Mental Health Day last year, I met an inspiring group of AMHPs from across the country who are working in settings across NHS and local authority services. The meeting was one of the most memorable I have had as Care Minister. The group of people I spoke to brought to life the game-changing role that they play in people’s lives.
The AMHP role marries well with social work skills, experience and capacity for independent oversight. AMHPs have the authority to make informed judgments on hospital detention, thinking wider than clinical need, and making sure the decisions taken are the correct ones for the individual. It should be no surprise, therefore, that we have committed ourselves to expanding the number of social workers specialising in mental health, through our Think Ahead graduate training programme. But we are not stopping there. We will invest in more training and development as part of post-pandemic recovery planning and preparation for the reformed Mental Health Act.
We are also committed to the delivery of responsive, high-quality adult safeguarding. As we celebrate World Social Health Day, it is important to remember that social workers in both adults’ and children’s services are the lead professionals in delivering safeguarding. In the coming months, our chief social worker will publish a briefing on the importance of transitional safeguarding. It is vital that young people are positively supported as they move from children’s services into the adult world.
Our amazing social care workforce have been through so much and they need our support. Prioritising their mental and physical health has never been more critical. To that end, we have supported social workers through the pandemic, including providing social workers with PPE and prioritising our frontline social care workforce for vaccination. On that point, last year, the chief social worker worked with the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust to publish guidance for the support and wellbeing of adult social workers and social care professionals during the pandemic. In the years ahead, we will continue to support the mental health and wellbeing of our hard-working and dedicated social care professionals.
It is vital that we support people with learning disabilities and autistic people to live as independently as possible. Again, social workers are the key professional group in contact with those individuals, helping to develop care and support plans, enabling people to aspire and live as independently as possible. Last month, our chief social workers for adults and for children published a joint report entitled “A spectrum of opportunity”, which looks at the role of social work in support of autistic young people. The report draws on the experiences of young people and their families across a range of local authorities and highlights the exceptional work social workers have been undertaking and what more can be done to strengthen practice. Across Government, an all-age autism strategy informed by that learning will be published this year.
I spoke earlier of the complex world we find ourselves in. Coronavirus has had a cruel and disproportionate impact on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. Protecting the health and wellbeing of our health and care workforce is a crucial step towards tackling health inequalities. We know that 21% of the adult social care workforce are from ethnic minority backgrounds, but there are huge regional variations, with London’s vibrant and diverse communities registering 66% of staff from ethnic minority backgrounds. There are also variations by professional role.
As of April, 18 local authorities will be implementing a workforce race equality standard across their adult and children’s social work departments, building on the learning of the NHS RES, which is in its fifth year. The RES is one step in my ambition to improve our information on the social care workforce, allowing us to identify and address barriers that prevent the full spectrum of voices from being heard. That will provide positive insights into staff progression and representation in senior management to support us fostering equal and fair opportunities for all. I look forward to the lessons that social workers will bring to us during the first phase of implementation.
In closing, I put on record my sincerest thanks to social workers across the country not just for their work throughout the covid-19 pandemic, but for all they bring to our health and care services. No other profession touches, teaches and transforms so many parts of our health and care system and liberates so many individuals, families and communities to live the lives they want and deserve to lead.
David Simmonds
I thank my hon Friend the Minister for focusing her speech very much on the people at the heart of what we are here to celebrate in our debate on World Social Work Day 2021. There is clearly a debate to be had about the complex social care system that we have in this country. We have heard from Members with direct personal experience. The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) spoke of her experience as a children and families social worker, the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) spoke of what she had seen in her community and in her career, and the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) spoke of the aspirations he sees as deliverable through a more devolved model with greater local discretion.
There is an enormous challenge for social workers. As we recognise, on the one hand there is a sense of frustration at the bureaucracy that surrounds them in doing the job of helping families; on the other, there is huge criticism levelled at the Government should they seek to alleviate that bureaucracy. We therefore need to find a way to cut through when we consider the toxic trio—domestic abuse, mental ill health and substance misuse—that bring children into the care system. Some 63% of children in our care system are there because of neglect. Those are complex issues to tackle, so we need to ensure that there is proportionate regulation and guidance from Government, but that the social workers who know those families well—know their circumstances and their communities—can make decisions with them, for them, and sometimes without them, to pursue the best interests of the children and individuals at the heart of that.
I welcome the care review. Although around 3% of our population of 12 million children in the United Kingdom are in the care system, those children are the most vulnerable in our society, and, from the perspective of public services and the Government, the most expensive. On average, a high-needs placement to a local authority costs more than £130,000 a year per child. Although the picture, according to Ofsted, is of an improvement in the supply and quality of placements available for local authorities when they are making arrangements for children, the system, none the less, remains under significant pressure because children and frail elderly people form a much larger proportion of our population than they have in recent years.
Owing to that, we expect a proportional increase in the pressure on our social work services, and we need to respond. Over the years, numerous initiatives from central Government have been designed to achieve an improvement—not just for social workers, but in the outcomes for the people they work with. Quality Protects was the first that came to my attention, but there have since been many initiatives, under many Governments, of all parties, to improve the work done and the outcomes achieved for our most vulnerable children.
According to international comparisons, the UK has the best—the second best, on some measures—child protection system in the world. That is a system in which social workers—derided and often criticised in the press, and working in obscure areas—do a job that is genuinely world class and something we should be proud of. When I consider the Government’s investment in the What Works Centre for Children’s Social Care, I commend working directly with those who best-know families, adults, elderly people and children, and what they have done to bring about a transformation in outcomes—and how we can enable that more easily at national level. Social work, in particular for children, is the only area of local government spending that has risen in the last decade, as local authorities have chosen to strip spending in other areas to prioritise early intervention and child protection activities.
We go forward to ensure that our social care system—around half of which looks after adults of working age, not people who are frail and elderly—can work seamlessly with the NHS on issues such as hospital discharge and supporting people in their community, and, at the same time, is not ancillary to the acute and hospital sector, but part of the bigger picture effectively supporting people. The hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) made the point that social workers are the key leads for those individuals, and that is the right way to see it.
On World Social Work Day, I hope that watching social workers, senior managers and people with an interest in the sector have noted the strong sense of cross-party good will and desire for higher recognition of the professional contribution that social workers make, as well as the desire to improve the working environment—not just physically, but the requirements and regulations people work under—and the ability to act in the way necessary to transform the lives of the most vulnerable people in our country.
I shall finish where I started. Today is an opportunity to put on record our thanks and praise for social workers, recognise their contribution and ensure that what we have heard feeds through to the spirit of the care review, as we look at ways to make this system, which is already extremely high performing by international standards, even better in the interests of our constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered World Social Work Day 2021.
Written Statements
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks Report
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
I am today laying before Parliament a report, “The European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks: 26 September 2020 to 25 December 2020”. I am laying this report because it is a legal requirement under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 for quarterly reports to be made to Parliament on the progress of the work to develop common frameworks. The report is available on gov.uk and details the progress made between the UK Government and devolved Administrations regarding the development of common frameworks. This report details progress made during the 10th three-month reporting period, and sets out that no “freezing” regulations have been brought forward under section 12 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. A copy of “The European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks: 26 September 2020 to 25 December 2020” report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The publication of the report reflects the Government’s continued commitment to transparency.
[HCWS857]
COP26 Presidency: Governance, Structure and Parliamentary Accountability
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
Following the creation of a full-time COP26 President role, I wanted to update the House on the governance, structure and parliamentary accountability of the role.
COP26 is a UN conference hosted by the UK, in partnership with Italy, which will be held in Glasgow in November 2021. World leaders will attend the conference, with the aim to agree how to tackle the threat of global climate change and deliver a resilient, net zero economy that protects and values the natural world
The UK is a world leader on climate change. We were the first major economy to legislate for net zero by 2050. In November 2020, the Prime Minister set out our new nationally determined contribution, committing to reduce our emissions by at least 68% by 2030 on a 1990 baseline, and in December 2020 we published the UK’s first adaptation communication.
Ministerial team
The right hon. Lord Goldsmith, Minister for Pacific and the Environment, will be the COP26 spokesperson in the House of Lords. The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), will also address COP26 questions in the House of Commons and is the UK international champion on adaptation and resilience for the COP26 presidency. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) has been appointed as my Parliamentary Private Secretary.
Role of UN COP President
The COP President-designate is responsible within the UK for delivering the COP26 summit in Glasgow. Ahead of the summit I am engaging with the UNFCCC secretariat and the current COP President as they prepare the provisional negotiations agenda. I am working to increase ambition internationally, developing effective international relationships with countries, institutions, businesses and stakeholders to achieve the necessary commitments in advance of and at COP. I am regularly engaging with the members of the UNFCCC to understand their positions and work with them to reach consensus on the negotiations. I will continue my close engagement with a large number of civil society actors as we seek to deliver an inclusive COP.
With the will of all parties, I will formally become COP President during the opening ceremony of the Glasgow summit. At the summit, I will participate as COP President, under the authority of the COP and its 197 parties. I will lead the formal negotiations, preside over meetings and will facilitate proceedings in accordance with the COP’s draft rules of procedure. I will have oversight of the overall package of outcomes and will work closely with UNFCCC members to secure consensus. As COP President I will also lead the COP Bureau, which is an 11-member body that assists the President and supports the work of COP, for the duration of my term until COP27 in late 2022.
The Prime Minister has made the role full time and as a full member of the Cabinet. My Cabinet colleagues remain responsible for delivering on their respective policy responsibilities.
Delivering a successful outcome
At the Climate Ambition summit on 12 December 2020, I set out four clear objectives for the UK presidency.
To ask countries to commit to net zero by mid-century, building on the 70% of world GDP covered by net zero targets today. To set the path to this, countries are being asked to come forward with ambitious 2030 emissions reductions targets (known as NDCs) which align with net zero goals. We will also be looking to accelerate the phase-out of coal, encourage investment in renewables, halt fossil fuel subsidies and pick up the pace on electric vehicle roll out. All of these areas are critical to stop average global temperatures exceeding 1.5C.
To urgently protect and help adapt our communities and natural habitats from the destructive effects of climate change. This will involve enabling and encouraging countries affected by climate change to build defences, warning systems and resilient infrastructure to avoid loss of homes and livelihoods.
To increase funding to support these aims, making good on the $100 billion annual climate finance goal affirmed through the Paris agreement. We need to be in a position to unleash the trillions in private and public finance to meet global net zero.
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.
We will deliver these objectives through a major international engagement programme. I have briefed all UN member states three times and have personally engaged with over 50 countries. In the last month I have visited Ethiopia, Gabon, Egypt, Nigeria, India, Nepal, Belgium and France, and have spoken to representatives from a wide range of other countries and organisations, including the United States and China and hosted virtual roundtables and engaged with civil society groups.
Parliamentary scrutiny and engagement
There will be regular oral questions, which commenced on 24 February. And written questions can be submitted to the COP26 President.
There will be full Select Committee scrutiny of the role. A BEIS Select Committee session was held on 19 January. The Chairs of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Environmental Audit, Science and Technology, Foreign Affairs, International Development, Treasury, Transport, Scottish Affairs, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Liaison Committees have come together informally as a “committee on COP26” which is an initiative I welcome and am committed to appearing in front of them alongside my ministerial colleagues, who will also be able to answer questions on their respective policy responsibilities.
My ministerial team and I will send a regular newsletter to colleagues in both Houses. I have agreed a programme of engagement activity with the chairs of the climate all-party parliamentary groups.
We will be providing a digital toolkit to Members in due course to support them to engage constituents in the Together for Our Planet campaign. We will also be working with partners to engage schools in COP26, including providing a tailored toolkit.
A range of opportunities are available for Members and their constituents to get involved at COP26 itself. These include hosting events, creative installations and exhibitions within UK Government managed spaces.
We also expect there will be a range of fringe events and activities across the city of Glasgow and throughout the UK organised by stakeholders, civil society organisations and businesses.
Domestic and devolved Administration engagement
We are working with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive 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.
I have invited climate change Ministers from the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to participate in a regular devolved Administrations group to ensure effective engagement and collaboration on COP26 in support of the delivery of an inclusive and welcoming COP26 representative of the whole of the UK.
I also chair the COP26 UK Mayors’ and Regions Advisory Council with mayors and council leaders from across the UK, including Glasgow, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. In addition to ongoing engagement with stakeholders across the UK, to ensure an inclusive, whole of society COP26, that is representative of all of the UK in Glasgow.
We have launched the Together for our Planet campaign which will raise awareness and understanding of COP26 and the work the UK is doing to combat climate change. The campaign aims to drive awareness and create opportunities for people across the UK to participate in the run-up to COP26.
COP Unit governance
The Prime Minister chairs the Climate Action Strategy Cabinet Committee (CAS), which determines the UK’s overarching climate strategy both domestically and internationally. I continue to chair the Climate Action Implementation Cabinet Committee (CAI), which supports the CAS to operationalise the Government’s climate strategy.
I am supported by the COP26 unit which has over 200 posts and is based in the Cabinet Office. The COP unit team brings together civil servants from across Whitehall and external expertise. International engagement, co-ordinated by the COP26 team in co-operation with the FCDO, takes place across all Departments and by all Ministers with an interest in the cross-cutting campaigns and our COP objectives, as well as by the Prime Minister.
As set out above, the regular processes are in place to ensure parliamentary scrutiny and support towards delivery of COP26.
Progress so far
Reducing emissions: countries representing around 65% of global CO2 emissions and around 70% of the world’s economy have now committed to reaching net zero emissions or carbon neutrality. When the UK took the role of incoming COP presidency in December 2019, coverage was just 20% of global emissions and 26% of world GDP. On 12 December, over 90 countries, businesses, sectors, cities, including 75 world leaders, attended the Climate Ambition summit, co-hosted with the UN and France in partnership with Italy and Chile. At the summit 45 leaders highlighted plans for new and more ambitious NDCs (covering 71 countries including all EU member states) and 24 countries announced new commitments, strategies or plans to reach net zero or carbon neutrality. The summit delivered real steps forward—for example Colombia committed to an impressive 51% emissions reduction target; and Pakistan announced a moratorium on new coal plants.
On helping protect communities and natural habitats from the impact of climate change: at the CAS, 20 countries put forward plans for protecting their economies and communities from the impact of climate change. On 25 January we launched the Adaptation Action Coalition to bring together countries to identify the solutions, technologies and resources needed to protect people and nature as the planet warms. Action on nature is at the heart of our COP presidency. At the UN General Assembly in September 2020 the Prime Minister signed the leaders’ pledge for nature committing leaders to take 10 urgent actions to put nature on a path to recovery by 2030. The UK played a key role in pioneering and negotiating the pledge, and which now has over 80 countries signed up. On 2 February 2021 we launched the forest, agriculture and commodity trade (FACT) dialogue, which will bring together key countries exporting agricultural products and the countries consuming these products to agree global principles and a roadmap of actions to make global supply chains process greener and more sustainable, tackling one of the primary drivers of nature loss.
On increasing climate finance: there is an urgent need to get more finance flowing to support swift climate action. Developed countries must meet and surpass the $100 billion of climate finance commitment, matching UK ambition to double UK ICF to at least £11.6 billion between 2021 and 2025. Private finance is also key. So far we have seen major asset owners, representing over $5 trillion, and asset managers, representing over $9 trillion, commit to net zero targets by 2050. Climate-related financial disclosures are increasing and jurisdictions in Brazil, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Switzerland are taking action to make disclosure mandatory, complementing the UK’s announcement for a pathway to mandatory disclosure across the economy by 2025.
On making progress on the outstanding elements of the Paris rulebook, and accelerating delivery of the Paris goals: we have been convening UNFCCC members in discussions to lay the groundwork for the negotiations, and we will be hosting, alongside Chile, a series of monthly multilateral consultations. More broadly, we have built partnerships to increase international collaboration on key issues, establishing the Energy Transition Council and Zero Emissions Vehicles Transition Council, as well as working through existing coalitions: the Powering Past Coal Alliance has grown to 114 members covering 20% of OECD coal power capacity.
I look forward to engaging with you and continuing to update you over the coming months on the road to COP26.
[HCWS858]
Notification to Parliament of a Contingent Liability: Indemnification to CGI IT UK Ltd
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
In line with our emergency response for nuclear incidents obligations, my Department has been developing a new software application to support the management of nuclear emergencies. The new system will replace two ageing legacy systems managed by BEIS and MOD.
My Department is procuring application management and support (AMS) services presently. We intend to indemnify the selected supplier in respect of liabilities that they may incur if employees of the former supplier of these services bring employment law claims against them in relation to the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE).
In relation to this, I have today laid before Parliament a departmental minute giving notice of the Department incurring this contingent liability in the form of indemnity protection provided to the selected supplier.
We believe it is appropriate to incur this contingent liability, to ensure that the new software system can go live without any delay. We consider the provision of this liability as the best value for money option to ensure the new service is available.
[HCWS854]
Post Office: Horizon Historical Shortfall Scheme
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
Problems with the Post Office’s Horizon IT system have affected the lives and livelihoods of many postmasters.
Over the years, the Horizon accounting system recorded shortfalls in cash in branches. The Post Office at the time thought that some of these were caused by postmasters, and this led to dismissals, recovery of losses by Post Office Ltd and, in some instances, criminal prosecutions.
A group of 555 of these postmasters, led by former postmaster Alan Bates, brought a group litigation claim against the Post Office in 2016. It is clear from the findings of Mr Justice Fraser, just how wrong the Post Office was in its relationship with postmasters and that there were clear failings with the Horizon system.
The Government pay tribute to those postmasters and colleagues across the House who continue to shine a spotlight on such an important issue.
The Post Office reached a full and final settlement with claimants in the group litigation in December 2019 and apologised for its past 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 the relationship with postmasters.
As part of the settlement the Post Office agreed to set up the historical shortfall scheme. The scheme was open to current and former postmasters who did not participate in the group litigation claim against the Post Office and did not have a criminal conviction, but who may have experienced and repaid Horizon shortfalls. It is therefore an important step in making sure that all those who were affected have the opportunity to seek resolution.
The scheme closed in August 2020 and received over 2,400 applications. This number was higher than the Post Office had anticipated when the scheme was established. All of these applications of course need to be properly assessed.
The Post Office is committed to the successful delivery and timely completion of the historical shortfall scheme. However, the cost of the scheme is beyond what the business can afford.
The Government will therefore provide sufficient financial support to the Post Office to ensure that the scheme can proceed, based on current expectations of the likely cost. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is providing this support in his capacity as sole shareholder in the Post Office.
There are two reasons this is being done.
First, we must ensure that those postmasters who have applied to this scheme are able to seek redress. By supporting the scheme, we will make it possible for these postmasters to be fairly compensated.
Secondly, we must protect the post office network. As we have seen through the pandemic, it provides essential services to citizens across the country.
Without this support the Post Office would be unable to deliver fully the historical shortfall scheme and it would be unable to continue to operate its network as we know it today. This is a critical intervention that benefits current and former postmasters and the millions of customers that rely on their local post office branch.
The final cost of delivering the historical shortfall scheme will be determined over the coming months, including through the work of an independent panel. This support will ensure that postmasters are appropriately compensated, however we will not spend more of taxpayers’ money than is necessary to ensure the scheme meets its objectives.
The Post Office is rightly contributing what it can from its own resources to the delivery of the scheme.
While it is important that the scheme remains independent of Government it is also important that this shareholder support delivers value for money. The Government are confident that the controls in place in the design of the historical shortfall scheme will make sure this is the case.
The Post Office will make the first offers to applicants shortly. However, given the number of applications it will take time to work through all the claims that the Post Office has received. The Government would therefore like to thank postmasters in advance for their patience and reassure them that their claims will be properly handled.
The Horizon dispute has affected the lives of too many people and supporting the scheme operated by the Post Office will help them right the wrongs of the past.
We must also ensure that a situation like this can never be allowed to occur again. That is why this Government have asked Sir Wyn Williams to lead the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry.
Sir Wyn’s inquiry will work to fully understand what happened, gather available evidence and ensure lessons have been learnt so that this cannot occur again. It will also look specifically at whether the historical shortfall scheme is being properly delivered. The Government look forward to receiving Sir Wyn’s report in the summer.
[HCWS853]
Audit and Corporate Governance Reforms
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
Today the Government are publishing their ambitious plans to strengthen the UK’s audit, company reporting and corporate governance framework, “Restoring trust in audit and corporate governance”, which I will lay in the House. These proposals will ensure the UK’s markets are at the cutting edge of global best practice.
British business is built on trust, so it is vital that our leading companies can command the confidence of the financial markets, investment community and wider public as the UK recovers from the effects of covid-19. Our comprehensive package of reforms will strengthen reporting, audit and governance in the UK’s largest companies. The proposals will help cement the UK’s position as a world-leading destination for investment by helping to ensure that our leading companies are governed responsibly and that investors, creditors, workers and others have access to the information they need.
Our proposals respond to the independent reviews led by Sir John Kingman, Sir Donald Brydon and the Competition and Markets Authority, and I would like to thank each of them for their valuable contributions. Today’s publication sets out a balanced and wide-ranging package of reforms which will lay the foundations for British companies to build back stronger as the UK recovers from the effects of covid-19 and in the wake of recent corporate failures. Restoring business confidence, but also people’s confidence in business, is crucial to repairing our economy and building back better from the pandemic.
In particular, the Government’s proposals include:
supporting directors of large companies in planning for long-term success through annual resilience statements: setting out how they are mitigating short and long-term risks, for the benefit not only of shareholders but also of local communities, suppliers, customers and the wider UK economy;
making directors of the country’s biggest companies more accountable when they breach their duties, with the prospect of fines or bans only when there are serious failings, such as misleading accounts or hiding information from auditors. This measure is targeted at the very largest companies in the UK, not start-ups and small businesses, and would not affect the vast majority of directors. Instead, it reflects the level of responsibility that comes with a board position in the largest companies;
addressing “rewards for failure” through mechanisms to claw bonuses back following misconduct or management failures;
measures to unleash competition and strengthen governance in the audit market, overseen by a new regulator, to increase choice and drive up resilience;
recognising the economic importance of the largest privately-owned companies by ensuring they meet the highest governance and reporting standards;
making company reporting more transparent and informative: so that they pay out dividends only when they have sufficient reserves, and enabling companies to have a wider range of metrics audited, for example climate disclosures.
These proposals will all be backed by the creation of a strong and independent statutory authority for audit, corporate reporting and governance. Replacing the Financial Reporting Council, the new regulator will be given much stronger powers to enforce standards. We also propose that it will have the power to impose an operational split between the audit and non-audit functions of accountancy firms, to reduce the risk of any conflicts of interest that may affect the standard of audit they provide.
The UK is consistently placed as one of the leading destinations for foreign investment in Europe and around the world. These reforms will sustain and build on the UK’s position, and reinforce the Government’s wider work to ensure the UK remains a world-class destination for investment.
The reforms cover the whole of the UK since, although company law is devolved in Northern Ireland, to date the Northern Ireland Executive has preferred to align with Great Britain in this area. The Government will also continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland in developing the final provisions.
In light of the challenging circumstances for companies, the Government’s consultation period will run for 16 weeks. The Government then intend to bring forward legislation when parliamentary time allows. We will implement reforms in a proportionate way that does not prove burdensome to business, for example considering a limited exemption for newly listed firms from the new requirements.
I will place a copy of the three supplementary publications, including an impact assessment of the proposed measures, in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS852]
UK Counter-Terrorist Asset-Freezing Regime: 1 October 2020 to 31 December 2020
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 (TAFA 2010), the Treasury was required to prepare a quarterly report regarding its exercise of the powers conferred on it by part 1 of TAFA 2010. This written statement satisfies that requirement for the period 1 October 2020 to 31 December 2020.
This report also covers the UK’s implementation of the UN’s ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida asset-freezing regime (ISIL-AQ), and the operation of the EU’s asset-freezing regime under EU regulation (EC) 2580/2001 concerning external terrorist threats to the EU (also referred to as the CP 931 regime).
Under the ISIL-AQ asset-freezing regime, the UN has responsibility for designations and the Treasury, through the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI), has responsibility for licensing and compliance with the regime in the UK under the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011.
Under EU regulation 2580/2001, the EU has responsibility for designations and while the UK was a member of the EU and throughout the transition period OFSI had responsibility for licensing and compliance with the regime in the UK under part 1 of TAFA 2010.
EU regulation (2016/1686) was implemented on 22 September 2016. This permits the EU to make autonomous Al-Qaida and ISIL (Da’esh) listings.
UK sanctions following the end of the transition period
Since the transition period ended at 11:00 pm on 31 December 2020, the UK no longer applies EU sanctions regulations and all sanctions regimes will be implemented through UK regulations. The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (the Sanctions Act) provides the legal framework for the UK to impose, update and lift sanctions autonomously. Information on the three new counter-terrorism sanctions regimes can be found via this link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-counter-terrorism-sanctions
These new sanction regimes ensure that the UK implements its international obligations under UN Security Council resolution 1373 and give effect to the UK’s obligations under UN Security Council resolution 2368.
This is the final quarterly report to Parliament on the UK’s terrorist asset-freezing regime.
The attached tables set out the key asset-freezing activity in the UK during the quarter.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-03-18/HCWS862/.
[HCWS862]
Transfer of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Contingent Capital Liability
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
I am today laying a departmental minute to advise that HM Treasury (HMT) intends—subject to the standard procedure for notification to Parliament of the assumption of contingent liabilities as described below—to transfer the contingent liability of £1,738,000,000 with respect to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO).
This transfer provides HMT with financial and accounting responsibility for the EBRD to match HMT’s longstanding policy responsibilities. HMT is not incurring or undertaking a new contingent liability—the EBRD’s standing contingent liability is swapping from the FCDO to the HMT balance sheet. This will not produce a net budget impact on either Department’s balance sheet as it is budget neutral and will appear as nil in the 2021-22 main estimates. The EBRD’s shareholding is held by the UK Crown, meaning it is at HMG’s discretion to determine which Department holds the EBRD’s callable liability.
The EBRD is a multilateral development bank (MDB) where HM Government (HMG) has an 8.52% capital shareholding. The Chancellor is UK governor at the EBRD, and the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Secretary is the UK alternate governor. The UK’s overall capital contribution totals £2,300,000,000, of which previous payments have made up the 20% “paid-in” capital contribution requiring a cash transfer. The other 80%, £1,738,000,000, is “callable capital”—the EBRD has the right to call for payment for these shares if there is a crisis affecting the bank’s assets or liabilities. No MDB has ever issued a call to payment on callable capital shares.
Although the EBRD has the right to call for payment of this callable capital incurred when the initial capital instalment was paid, no such instance has occurred in any MDB in the past. EBRD has a AAA credit rating, with a diversified portfolio of investments across a large range of countries. As of June 2020, the EBRD held €29.8 billion in equity (including shareholders’ subscribed capital) and €11.6 billion in its reserves. Again, the transfer of the contingent liability from FCDO to HMT swaps the liability between balance sheets but does not incur or undertake further liabilities. If the liability were to be called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.
[HCWS860]
Independent Review into Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Orders
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
The Government are announcing today the publication of the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) report into the use of do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions taken during the covid-19 pandemic. We would like first to thank the CQC for their swift work on the review, as well as the people, their families, representatives and staff who shared their experiences on such an important and complex issue. A copy of the report is available at: https://www.cqc.org.uk/.
The report follows concerns raised at the beginning of the pandemic around the use of “blanket” DNACPR decisions across groups of people, particularly our most vulnerable. The Care Quality Commission has investigated these concerns.
Sensitive and well communicated DNACPR decisions can be an important part of patient care and end of life experience. It is essential, therefore, that good practice is embedded across the health and care system to build understanding of the role good DNACPR decisions play in high-quality personalised care.
We are pleased to see the numerous examples of good practice, across both health and social care settings, highlighted by the report. We heard about experiences of people and their families seeing health and care providers go above and beyond to overcome the challenges posed by the pandemic.
However, such good practice was not true everywhere. The report tells the stories of people who were denied the opportunity to discuss their DNACPR decisions, as well as of families and carers feeling unable to support their loved ones or challenge DNACPR decisions. This is completely unacceptable.
Inappropriate or “blanket” application of DNACPRs decisions are wholly unacceptable, even in pressurised circumstances. All decisions about DNACPR must, in all circumstances, be made on an individual basis according to need.
We must be able to ensure that people feel equal partners in their care and that staff across all care settings feel well equipped to hold these difficult conversations. We must have processes to ensure that people feel supported to speak up when they have concerns. We support the recommendations of the CQC, including ensuring that staff have the training needed to be able to support people with DNACPR decisions; that there is national guidance and system level oversight; and that people are well informed of what good practice looks like, what their rights are and for DNACPR decisions to be considered as part of good end of life care.
The Government are determined to tackle bad practice and welcome the report’s recommendation for a ministerial oversight group to drive progress on this important issue. We are committed to driving forward the delivery of these recommendations and ultimately ensure everyone experiences the compassionate care they deserve.
[HCWS859]
Third Annual Report of the Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
My noble Friend the Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) has today made the following written ministerial statement:
I am pleased to announce the publication of the third annual report of the Biometrics and Forensic Ethics Group on 18 March 2021. The group provides Ministers with independent advice on matters relating to ethical issues in forensic science and biometrics and considers issues in data ethics.
I would like to thank the group for its advice concerning the use and retention of biometric identifiers and for its advice on the development and testing of biometric technologies.
The group has provided advice and guidance on issues such as: retention of additional DNA profile information on the national DNA database, and a trial on the use of near-match reporting; consideration of the ethical issues in genetic genealogy and massively parallel sequencing approaches for criminal investigations; and recommendations for leaflets to inform the public on issues relating to burial at sea and deletion of custody images.
The Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group annual report can be viewed on the website of the group at: https://www. gov.uk/government/organisations/biometrics-and-forensics-ethics-group and a copy will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS856]
Refugee Protection and Integration
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Global Britain has a proud record of helping those fleeing persecution, oppression or tyranny from around the world. In addition to providing £10 billion each year to support people in need through overseas aid, the UK is a global leader in refugee resettlement. Between 2016 and 2019 we resettled more refugees from outside Europe than any EU member state.
In 2015, we committed to resettle 20,000 of the most vulnerable refugees who fled the brutal conflict in Syria through the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme (VPRS). This included people requiring urgent medical treatment, survivors of violence and torture, and women and children at risk.
Today we are delighted to be able to confirm that we have now met that commitment. We have resettled 20,080 vulnerable refugees across the UK since September 2015.
In total, this means that, across all Government-funded resettlement schemes, more than 25,000 refugees have been resettled in the UK over the past six years, around half of whom were children.
This achievement has been made possible thanks to the outstanding work and dedication of many partners, including non-governmental organisations in the UK and international partners, community and faith groups, local authorities, devolved Administrations and individual members of the public. I am truly grateful for this collaborative effort.
Resettlement is vital to safely and legally provide a path to settlement for vulnerable people fleeing persecution and it is right that we continue to offer safe pathways for those in need of protection. The launch of our new global UK resettlement scheme will now build on the success of previous schemes and we will continue our proud record of resettling refugees who need our help from around the world.
We want refugees in the UK to have the freedom to succeed and that means access to the tools they need to become fully independent, provide for themselves and their families and the ability to contribute and integrate into the economic and cultural life of the UK.
That is why today I have also announced £14 million of funding to help newly granted refugees to integrate in the UK. The £14 million fund will pilot new approaches across the country to support newly granted refugees to learn English, move into work, access housing and build links in their local communities. Lessons learned from these pilots will inform future support available to all refugees.
This Government continue to step forward to provide help to those facing oppression or tyranny. This year we have also introduced a new pathway to citizenship for British national (overseas) status holders and their family members who are facing draconian new security laws in Hong Kong, which may see an estimated 320,000 people come to the UK over the next five years.
We have also enabled over 29,000 close relatives of refugees to join them in the UK through refugee family reunion in the last five years.
Looking ahead, as we reform the asylum system, global Britain will continue its proud tradition of providing safe haven to those in need through safe and legal routes.
[HCWS855]
Rough Sleeping Accommodation Programme Funding
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
Today, the Government are launching the next phase of the rough sleeping accommodation programme. Councils across England are invited to bid for a share of funding totalling £212 million for 2021-22 to 2023-24 to deliver move-on homes for rough sleepers. These homes will be a national asset to support vulnerable people, and high-quality support services will be provided alongside to help vulnerable people move on from rough sleeping.
This funding is part of the £433 million rough sleeping accommodation programme available over the lifetime of this Parliament to deliver 6,000 new homes for rough sleepers, announced by the Government in May 2020. This represents the largest ever investment in move-on accommodation. Today’s announcement builds on the first year of the programme, in which the Government allocated more than £150 million for move-on accommodation for rough sleepers, as well as investing in high-quality support over the next three years, so that vulnerable people helped through the programme can maintain their tenancies and move on from rough sleeping.
Further information on future years of the programme is available in the fund’s prospectus, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rough-sleeping-accommodation-programme-2021-24.
The Government have made clear that no one should be without a roof over their head, which is why we have committed to end rough sleeping. That is also why, including this programme, we have spent £700 million in 2020-21 and are spending over £750 million over the next financial year to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping.
This programme builds on the Government’s unprecedented Everyone In initiative, which has so far supported 37,000 individuals during the pandemic, with more than 26,000 already successfully moved on to longer-term accommodation. Together with our pledge to fully enforce the Homelessness Reduction Act, this funding demonstrates our commitment to making the most of this opportunity to transform the lives of the some of the most vulnerable in society, and to ending rough sleeping for good.
[HCWS861]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Representation of the People (Proxy Vote Applications) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, across all parties and none, we are all resolved that democracy should not be cancelled because of Covid. The Government have confirmed that the election scheduled for May will go ahead and are providing a package of measures to support the statutorily independent returning officers to deliver these elections successfully and with the right precautions in place. Those measures were set out in a delivery plan published by the Government on 5 February.
These draft regulations would temporarily change the eligibility criteria for emergency proxy applications, so that electors who are self-isolating due to coronavirus on election day have an additional option to vote remotely. The provisions in this SI would also allow those with an existing proxy to change the person acting as their proxy if their original proxy were affected by coronavirus.
The last opportunity for a routine proxy application is at 5 pm six working days before election day. After this deadline, the only other option to create a new absent voting arrangement is to apply for an emergency proxy vote. Emergency proxy applications on medical grounds are usually required to be attested by a medical professional. Not everyone will be able to seek such attestation—for example, those who become symptomatic with Covid too late to take a test. The statutory instrument would remove this requirement for those affected by Covid. Removing attestation will also avoid adding more pressure on already busy medical professionals.
Furthermore, if an elector was informed that a member of their household tested positive for coronavirus but they were unable to evidence that they also had the virus, under current regulations the elector would be ineligible to apply for an emergency proxy vote even though they ought to remain at home. This statutory instrument will remove these limitations for those affected by Covid-19 and provide a more flexible approach for those who ought to remain at home on election day.
The changes proposed would mean that, if an elector believed that their particular circumstances would lead to an increased risk of transmission of the coronavirus to themselves or others in a range of circumstances, they would be eligible to apply for an emergency proxy vote. For example, an elector who has been made aware they may have been exposed to the virus at home or work in the days leading up to the election can apply for an emergency proxy vote even if they are not yet showing symptoms.
Beyond removing attestation, the usual security measures for absent voting applications—such as the signature requirement, providing date of birth, and the requirement that electors declare that they understand that all the information provided is true and that providing false information to an ERO is illegal—remain in place.
Electors who are granted emergency proxies will be included in the absent voting lists, which are available to candidates and agents on request, for the express purpose of ensuring scrutiny and integrity.
These temporary changes are both necessary and proportionate to ensure that those affected by coronavirus can still exercise their right to vote. This SI does not affect the regulations regarding any other route for emergency proxy applications. Almost all provisions in it will expire at the end of February next year, so will not apply to any regularly scheduled elections, such as those in May 2022.
The only permanent provisions in this SI simply clarify and add certainty to the existing position that electors with long-term proxy arrangements, such as those with a disability, can replace the person acting as a proxy without having to go through the entire application process again. Going through the full application process would require an elector to prove their eligibility for a long-term proxy vote again, simply to change the person who was their proxy; that should not be necessary.
The statutory instrument has been considered by both the JCSI and the SLSC, neither of which has drawn the attention of the House to it. For the avoidance of doubt, I should state that we have consulted the Electoral Commission, which is supportive of the proposed changes. We also shared a draft of the SI with the Association of Electoral Administrators, SOLACE and officials in the Welsh Government.
There is broad support among stakeholders for the proposed changes in the instrument. Both the Welsh and Scottish Governments have put similar measures in place for the polls on 6 May for which they are responsible. It is important that we are able to offer voters consistency of approach wherever possible, and I am pleased that all three Governments are working to support voters in this way. I hope that noble Lords will welcome these proposals. I beg to move.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased that the title contains “draft”, because I have some thoughts that I hope my noble friend the Minister might take on board. I am not clear why we need an expiry date of 28 February 2022. Surely we do not know whether isolation will continue for some unknown period. There is talk of a third wave and another lockdown and so on, so I do not know why this cannot be left open-ended. Then, when it is clear that we are through the coronavirus pandemic, we can by all means determine to remove this facility altogether.
Self-isolation is only for 10 to 14 days, depending on the circumstances. That is a pretty short timeframe, really. I have fought local elections, general elections and other elections, and part of me wonders whether there is not a degree of overkill.
After paragraph (3A), there are four categories to be inserted. I have no problems with new sub-paragraphs (a) or (b), but what is said in new sub-paragraph (c) is true for almost everyone, so in a sense it depreciates the currency. I have a question mark over new sub-paragraph (d), because there is a danger of its being made too easy to get a vote. This could be open to abuse.
In elections I have taken part in, I have known there to be personation. Indeed, there was an article about it in the Times or the Telegraph after the 1966 general election, in which I was the Conservative candidate in Islington North. I fully admit that I had no hope of winning in Islington North, which is now Jeremy Corbyn’s seat, but as a keen young candidate I made sure that we had tellers on the doors, and we watched carefully what was happening. Afterwards I was in the pub talking with my key workers, and two of them said, “You know, we’re quite sure we saw that chap come at 7.30 and the same chap appeared again at 9 o’clock.” I said, “That’s funny you say that, because I felt the same.” I thought no more of it other than that, as people who know that part of London will know, there is an extensive Irish community there with large families. The long and the short of it was that some journalist from either the Times or the Telegraph was watching carefully, and along appears an editorial saying that there were clearly personations, where people had left the voting card in a house or residence where there were multiple voters, and a chap had taken a card not just for himself but for several other people in that house who were registered to vote.
On general elections, there is still some personation. I have seen it in a couple of seats and indeed—dare I mention it?—I have been on a number of overseas monitoring roles, and there is certainly less personation in general elections that I have watched in Sri Lanka than in parts of the UK. I am not at all sure what the principles are. People who are ill get a postal vote and it is done with great rigour, as my noble friend mentioned. It is done properly and carefully. Proxy votes, on the other hand, are a little more open to creative illegality. This SI talks about “long-term proxy arrangements”. Why should there ever be a long-term proxy arrangement when you can get a postal vote? There is a real danger here with a low turnout or tight majority.
My first general election majority was 179. I lost on the first count, then crept in with about two or three votes on the second count, and ended up with 179 on the third count. At my second election in October 1974, I crept in with 141. In local elections, as we all know, there are some very low turnouts and very tight majorities. Single figures are quite common; majorities of 20 to 25 are very common. If, as a result of this proposal, you have people applying for proxy votes, there is no doubt that it will dramatically improve the turnout. There will probably be people who were not going to vote in the first place, but because they know they can get a proxy vote they will turn out.
I am a bit fearful about what is proposed here. This needs to be watched carefully and, frankly, I am not in favour of it at all. Maybe I am in a minority. However, as someone who has experienced elections in some depth—I note that the Liberal spokesman has also witnessed a fair number of local elections—I wonder whether this is a step too far.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Caine) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for answering my Written Question on Monday about absent voting arrangements. I am grateful to him for confirming that
“The law does not require applicants to verify their identity or address when applying for a postal or proxy vote”.
The regulations that we are considering today require little debate. In the circumstances of the pandemic, it is right to allow people to appoint someone as a proxy voter for them as late as 5 pm on polling day. But other measures could have been taken to ensure that everyone entitled to vote was able to do so. We have seen in the most recent Dutch elections this week that polling stations were opened for three days to help more people to vote without the risk of queues and crowding. Our Government are limiting increased access to voting to this very modest measure.
My concern is that some local authorities may act against the clear intention of these regulations and existing legislation about proxy voting, and try to suppress the right of voters to participate in this way or by post. The Minister will no doubt be aware that the local council in Woking has been advising potential proxy and postal voters that they should provide proof of identity with photo ID and proof of residence. People not providing this are threatened with consequences, and only in the very small print does the documentation admit that applications will be processed even if the photo ID and proof of residence is not provided.
Does the Minister think that local authorities should be free to imply incorrectly that there are such requirements to obtain a postal or proxy vote? Does he accept that such barriers may discriminate against groups such as young people who may not yet have passports or a driving licence, and who may not have utility bills addressed to them personally? Is not this a classic attempt at voter suppression of the kind that we have become familiar with seeing from the Republicans in the United States? Will the Minister work with the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators, SOLACE and others to advise local authorities that they should proceed exactly as set out in these regulations and other legislation, and not seek to impose additional barriers to make it harder for people entitled to vote to participate in the elections? Does he think that the Electoral Commission may need greater powers to enforce standardisation of best practice consistent with the law for electoral administrators issuing application forms concerned with electoral registration and absent voting?
The Minister helpfully replied to me on Monday to say that electoral registration officers
“do not have the power to reject or refuse an absent vote application if the applicant does not provide additional proof of identity or residence”.
Will he therefore prevent local authorities such as Woking Borough Council effectively taking the law into their own hands in such matters and seeking to exclude some of those people on the electoral rolls from being able to participate in elections? I have heard today from the Electoral Commission, which advises that local authorities should not imply that this is the case. I hope that the Minister will work with the commission to make sure that this practice is ended in the Woking borough and not begun elsewhere.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I support the regulations. As the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the Minister said, they do not need a huge amount of discussion. They are very welcome, as they will enable people to have further opportunities to participate in the elections in May, and I welcome them.
The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, had a valid point when he drew attention to the fact that these regulations have a sunset clause coming up next February. We all want to ensure that the pandemic is long gone when we get to May 2022 but of course we cannot guarantee that—so why do have the sunset clause? I am assuming that, if the pandemic has not gone by next May—if we have a third or fourth wave—the Government will have to introduce something like these regulations again. We do not want that but it may have to happen, and that is a fair point.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, raised Woking Borough Council. I have had involvement with Woking Borough Council before and I know that this is not the first time that this authority has decided to do its own thing, as it were. It is not right for local authorities, EROs or any other official of a council to think that they can act beyond the law as agreed by Parliament. The situation is that nobody needs to provide this information and Woking Borough Council is acting beyond its powers. I hope that the Electoral Commission, and the Government, will make it very clear to the council that it cannot do this and that it has to act strictly within the regulations as approved by Parliament —no more, no less.
As I said, this is not the first time this authority has done this, and I do not think that any other authority behaves like this. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord True, has confirmed to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, what the situation is. I hope the Government can speak to the authority and make it very clear that it should not and cannot do what it is doing. In fact, the authority knows that it cannot do this, because, as the noble Lord said, it is in the small print that people do not need to provide that information. That confirms that the council knows that it should not be doing this. For me, that is poor practice, or sharp practice, and not something that any of us in this Committee would support.
Having said that, I fully support the regulations before the Grand Committee.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken and acknowledge their great experience in electoral matters. I am not going to exchange election stories with my noble friend Lord Naseby, but I can assure him that the first majority I ever had was a lot smaller than his—not normally what people boast about, but that was the case.
Important points were raised and I shall try briefly to address them. My noble friend Lord Naseby said two things. The first was that he was concerned about fraud. We are all concerned about fraud. There is always a balance to be reached in these things. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, implied that it is also important to ensure that people are enabled to vote, and that is ultimately what this statutory instrument is about. In the difficult circumstances we face now, with coronavirus, people who are affected by coronavirus at a late stage before the election must be enabled to vote. This is an exceptional circumstance and our judgment is that, whatever the risks my noble friend may fear, it is a reasonable stance that we are taking.
I repeat what I said in opening: it is an offence to provide false information. Electors granted emergency proxies will be included in the absent voting lists, which will be available on request to candidates and agents for scrutiny. We believe that the Government have reached a reasonable balance on that.
The other point my noble friend made was, in a sense, logically not quite on par. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, he asked why this provision is just for a brief period. If I were concerned about fraud, I would not necessarily want to make it a permanent arrangement. I think there is a slight logical inconsistency in the questions, but I understand that my noble friend was coming at it from two different directions.
It is our belief and hope that conditions will have returned to normal by next year and that we should return to the broad established arrangements for elections. Obviously, if the worst happened—and we all pray that it will not—the Government would review it at the time. We believe that it is reasonable to place in the regulations a sunset clause and, indeed, we are often asked in other aspects of coronavirus debates to impose sunset clauses. I hope that answers also the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. I appreciate his support for the proposed SI, and that of his party, and equally the support put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, raised a point about a specific local authority. In my position responding to the Committee, I shall not highlight—or lowlight—any particular local authority. I made the position clear in response to a Question, as he was kind enough to say. Postal or proxy voters must by law supply their date of birth and signature at application, and again when they return their postal ballots at an election or referendum. The legal position is clearly set out in this statutory instrument and elsewhere in electoral law. I am sure that electoral registration officers, who are responsible for processing applications for postal or proxy votes and applying the legislative requirements, have a mind to the law. The points raised are properly for the electoral registration office of Woking Borough Council to respond to, but I take note of what he said. Good practice is good practice and the best practice in line with the law. That is as far as I will go on that matter.
I return to my gratitude to all noble Lords who have spoken, who raised germane and important points to which I have tried to respond. I, and I think they, believe that the instrument makes sensible change to support the effective administration of elections. It gives an option to those electors who must remain at home on election day to cast their vote remotely if they are affected by coronavirus, or to replace a proxy affected by coronavirus if they have already made arrangements to vote remotely.
I did not answer my noble friend Lord Naseby’s question on long-term proxy. Those with long-term proxies often have particular reasons and conditions for having them. In a free society, where a proxy vote is a perfectly legitimate way to vote, people have a choice. They can vote by proxy, in person—although such people cannot often do that—or by post. That is a choice for each elector.
I thank noble Lords most sincerely for their support for the statutory instrument and commend it to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Caine) (Con)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 3.30 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
That the Grand Committee do consider the Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 22 February 2021 under paragraph 12(1) of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. They were debated and moved in the Commons Delegated Legislation Committee on Monday 8 March and considered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday 9 March. Mirroring legislation is being prepared for data registered against properties in Northern Ireland, which will be presented in plenary on Monday 22 March. Scotland operates its own energy performance of buildings register and is not covered by these regulations.
This is a straightforward instrument. It relates to the statutory fees that are charged when data is registered for energy performance certificates, display energy certificates and air conditioning inspection reports for properties in England and Wales. Fees are applied to two classes of data registration, covering domestic and non-domestic properties. The regulations propose to reduce fees from £1.86 to £1.64 when data is lodged for domestic properties, and from £9.84 to £1.89 for non-domestic properties. Noble Lords may recall that fees charged for data registrations in England and Wales were last adjusted three years ago, and that they have been amended by statutory instruments on six occasions between 2012 and 2018.
The Committee will recall that the United Kingdom has set a target in law to bring its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, to help tackle climate change. Heating and powering buildings currently accounts for 40% of the UK’s total energy usage, and we must ensure that buildings are constructed to high standards of energy efficiency. The energy performance of buildings registers are a key tool in promoting energy efficiency by providing valuable information about the energy performance of buildings and encouraging home- owners and commercial building owners and occupiers to improve the energy efficiency of their buildings. An energy performance certificate is needed whenever a property is built, sold or let, and must be ordered before a property is marketed for sale or rent. At a glance, a consumer searching for a new home or commercial premises can determine how efficient a property might be, while an owner can consider recommendations on how they might improve the energy efficiency of their property.
Historically, the Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) Regulations 2012 implemented the energy performance of buildings directive. We retained those regulations after we left the European Union, as they contribute to our target of achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. They set out the Secretary of State’s obligation to maintain registers of data so that energy performance certificates, display energy certificates and air conditioning inspection reports can be recorded in a readily accessible format and made available to everyone. Regulation 28 sets out a power to levy fees to maintain the registers. Officials in my department calculate the appropriate level of fees each year on the basis of proposed costs of service divided by the forecast number of data lodgements expected.
A reduction in fees is possible now because the Government have invested in a new cloud-based digital platform and moved away from the fixed hardware model that had been in place since 2008. This will ensure the energy performance of buildings register service is user-centred and fit for the future. The new fee rates set out in this instrument will allow the costs of operating the energy performance of buildings register service to continue to be met without profiteering, but nor do we expect lodgement fees to subsidise a loss. Costs of the service have been calculated in line with government policy and tested with Treasury colleagues and stakeholders in the property energy profession.
Domestic and non-domestic data lodgements are now made to a unified platform built on cloud-based infrastructure. There are some technical differences between lodging data for a domestic and non-domestic certificate, which give rise to additional costs for making a non-domestic data registration and hence a differentiation in fees between the two classes, although this is now greatly reduced compared to previous years.
To conclude, these regulations serve a very specific purpose: to reduce the statutory fees charged when data is registered for domestic and non-domestic energy performance certificates, display energy certificates and air conditioning inspection reports. Colleagues in Northern Ireland are proposing to introduce their own mirroring legislation to ensure coherence between different parts of the United Kingdom that make use of the same register infrastructure. This will ensure that fees charged for Northern Ireland data lodgements are in line with those for England and Wales. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I commend them to the Grand Committee.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, on the face of it, the regulations before the Committee are as simple as they come. However, my noble friend the Minister will recall from his previous encounter, over business rates relief for sport and charities, with me and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who will of course be opening the bowling for the Liberal Democrats, that what appears to be the simplest of balls can lead to a Minister being nutmegged at the crease. While we hope that that will not happen today, I intend to press the Minister on a few key issues relating to these fees. I thank the Energy Saving Trust and all those who have offered advice on this issue.
I also draw on my experience as a resident in Ayrshire, Scotland. For while, as my noble friend the Minister has said, Scotland operates its own energy performance of buildings register and is not covered by the draft regulations, I believe there are important read-across policy implications which are pursued in Scotland and which the Committee may reflect on in the context of these regulations.
As the Minister has said, this is a straightforward SI relating to the statutory fees charged when data is registered for energy performance certificates—EPCs—display energy certificates and air conditioning inspection reports for England and Wales. Fees, as he confirmed, are applied to the two classes of data registration, covering domestic and non-domestic properties. There are significant benefits in having the energy performance certificate register and the service it provides, including readily available access to information and data. I strongly support any initiative that provides easy-to-access information and data on the land and built environment at cost.
However, there are likely to be considerable changes to building regulations. It is important that these changes are provided as far in advance as possible, so that contracts can also be amended as far in advance of any proposed changes. This would improve the lodgement process and minimise the requirement for the Minister to return to this Committee in future years over fees. Would it also be possible for government to consider sending registered EPCs by email rather than having to log into a labyrinthine database to retrieve them, as this can be inadequate and time-consuming? If so, this would provide value for the money spent. We need constantly to review and improve the system to which these fees apply.
Policies could be implemented in England that have made a real difference in Scotland and, indeed, Wales, such as the existence of a focused, directly funded scheme for installing energy efficiency measures and efficient heating for fuel-poor homeowners and private renters. I remain convinced, as I have previously proposed in the House, that this policy would be more efficiently delivered centrally. That said, in the context of these regulations the question as to how frequently charges will be reviewed and revised is important, which brings me to certainty. This is important because it bears on the frequency of registering for EPCs for properties in England and Wales. Governments can offer two very important things for energy efficiency measures to work: money, of course, but also certainty.
To develop the supply chain and to unlock investment from the private sector, a defined and adhered to long-term policy framework is needed. The biggest issue when talking to the supply chain is always the chopping and changing of energy efficiency schemes. While the nature and detail of schemes matter, that they should not be changed frequently is almost as important as what those actual details are. The supply chain can adapt to and thrive on most variants of energy efficiency schemes; what it cannot deal with is uncertainty and discontinuity.
Scotland and, to a lesser extent, Wales have long-term energy efficiency policies and programmes. In this vein, one of the key components of a stable policy environment is to make energy efficiency, particularly domestic energy efficiency, an infrastructure priority. The Scottish Government have done this and reaped the benefits.
Although individual energy efficiency installations are obviously relatively small in scale, the energy efficiency of buildings is a key parameter in the overall efficiency and productivity of the economy, and the aggregate costs and benefits are of major infrastructure scale. Raising domestic energy efficiency to EPC rating C would generate 150,000 jobs, have a budget of the same magnitude as HS2 and would save the energy equivalent of six Hinkley Points. It thus makes sense for energy efficiency to be an infrastructure priority, and once it is, this drives investment and policy certainty and sends key signals to the supply chain.
While I accept that a modest reduction in fees is now possible, I question whether the reduction is not exceeded by the duplication, time input, form changing and system adjustment for such a small change for domestic properties simply because the Government have invested in new cloud-based digital platforms and moved away from the fixed hardware model that has been in place, as my noble friend the Minister said, for the past 13 years.
A recent report by the Public Accounts Committee said that the Government have no plans to meet climate change targets, two years after setting them in law. That is what is stated in the report. The UK’s stock of 27 million houses includes some of the worst insulated and least energy-efficient homes in Europe. I share the views of Members of another place that I hope the Government will take the example of what is proposed in this related SI to move further with the agenda and deliver a big improvement in work to meet our climate change targets by making homes in the UK warm, dry and affordable to heat.
Should there not be some consideration of linking the fees to improvements in the future homes standards to be introduced in 2025, so that sellers can make a marketing point that there might be no charge where homes are at least 75% more carbon-efficient than when they were purchased? Correspondingly, would these charges not be an opportunity to charge more for those homeowners and businesses who fail to meet targets? They could effectively become a financial penalty and reward scheme. It would provide an opportunity for everyone concerned to have skin in the game, rather than the less efficient mechanism of being urged to take action by government. This would add further impetus to the sector.
With these suggestions now tabled, I hope my noble friend will present a defensive straight bat in response to what I appreciate may have been six difficult balls to defend. We know that he can do no more than play a defensive shot today—wild attempted sweeps to six would be a fatal error—since the last thing the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I want to do is to take the wicket of such an impressive and erudite Minister.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it is a genuine pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who has made lots of good points. Some of them relate directly to points that I was hoping to make, so I will not repeat them, but the importance of the building sector in achieving our net zero carbon objectives should not be underestimated. The second largest source of emissions is from buildings.
It is easy for us to focus far too much on the commendable achievements in building net zero carbon homes, but by my calculation, we simply have to recognise that, by 2050, something like two-thirds of the homes we live in will already have been built, so retrofitting and securing energy efficiency in our existing housing stock is absolutely critical. There are government schemes for this purpose, such as the Whole House Retrofit plan related to social housing, and so on.
The scope of these regulations is modest, and I welcome that. I know that we are all grateful to the Minister for explaining the regulations at the outset, but I shall unashamedly take the opportunity to talk about not the price of EPCs but the uses to which they should be put. Far too infrequently are EPCs seen as the spur to energy efficiency improvements that they should be, which is what we are looking for.
On this occasion I will not be drawn into the private rented sector. I know that the Government undertook a consultation in the latter part of last year. I am probably slightly disappointed that, in the event, they were not a bit more ambitious, because the cost-benefit ratio they ended up with suggested that the benefits did not outweigh the costs, but that of course was at the carbon price assumed between now and 2050.
Again, I will not go down this rabbit hole for too long because it is too important and too deep, but we ought to ensure that our carbon pricing is set at a level that forces change. If it is set at that level, it is also one that is likely to deliver substantial benefits in relation to the energy efficiency of buildings and the costs that renters and landlords have to meet.
I come back to the use of the EPC. Two-thirds of the existing housing stock has a rating of D or worse, so we need to effect change. There are government schemes: my noble friend Lord Moynihan is quite right; it is not that there are not schemes. The Government have put money and resources behind grant schemes, but the supply chain and the people influenced by it need these things to be sustained over a considerable period and we need the response to be substantial and positive. I am afraid it is not.
At the moment, even in the last few weeks, we are sitting here saying, “Why are people not taking up the green homes grant?” I think it would be far too easy to blame it on Covid and say, “They do not want people in their homes, understandably, so they are not taking up the grant.” However, it was true beforehand. We have had this with other insulation schemes. It is sometimes as brutally simple as people living in a house not wanting to empty their loft to let somebody up there to put the right insulation in place. They do not want the disruption.
I will put just one point to my noble friend in the hope he will convey it into the right ears across government. Like we do in the private rented sector, focusing on when there is a new tenancy, in the owner-occupied sector we must focus on the moment of sale—when the EPC is given to a potential new owner and they have a period ahead of them when they might reap the benefits of investment in energy efficiency. At that moment, they also are likely to empty the house. They may empty the loft and sometimes they can engineer a short window of opportunity for energy efficiency improvements to take place.
I suggest that, at that moment, rather than a grant scheme which comes and goes and depends on the vagaries of spending reviews, there could be a permanent allowance against stamp duty for energy efficiency improvements up to, say, the value of £5,000 that they undertake—if recommended as a result of an energy performance certificate. Such a scheme could be confined to houses with an EPC of D or worse or, to start off with, those rated F and G, to see how it goes.
I prefer tax incentives to government grant schemes. I prefer tax relief to expenditure. I prefer incentives people can permanently rely on and where they feel they are getting some of their own money back or not having to give their money to the Government. As the tax is targeted on that moment, the incentive can be deployed in that moment as well. I commend that thought to my noble friend.
I know government departments not only hesitate, but will not enter the territory of tax, because it is all the Treasury’s business. But if they have an objective—and there is an objective here—and they think it can best be achieved by working with the Treasury through a tax incentive, I ask that they go down that path.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Caine) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, follow that. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, started with what we might call a tricky spin and then we had straight bowling at the wicket from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
Anybody who has been around this issue will have heard variations of these points before; they are the obvious points. If you have a scheme that people are not accessing, you might as well not have it.
One of the points I wanted to make was this. With varying savings of 22p and £7.95, it might seem churlish to complain, but are those savings at the cost of guiding people through the benefits? I am thinking of somebody wanting to pick up the phone to be told how to do it properly, especially if this is something that they do not do very often and they are not that confident.
This is a useful tool in the battle against climate change, because it gives people information about how to go on from here. But are we going to make sure that the housing stock changes? To my knowledge, there has been agreement for over 30 years that we have very badly insulated housing in this country. This is no surprise to anybody who has been around this issue; even if you had wanted to avoid knowing it, it would have been very difficult not to have found it out. How are we going to get through that?
A small reduction is lovely—everybody likes that—but are we even going to notice a 22p change and a seven quid change on the fees? What is the cost here? Have we made sure that there will be somebody at the end of a phone line, to chat through the process and make sure people know what they are getting, how it is being used and the benefit? What if you get something wrong online and there is nobody to help you? On such occasions my use of expletives goes through the roof. If you are not used to using the system online or have limited access, things may not happen as they should. How are we going to talk people through it?
I totally endorse the points made about the fact there should be a long-term, reliable strategy to address the long-term problem—that has been here long before any of us were—of badly insulated housing, and that people are wasting money and we are messing up the environment. I thank the Government for what they have been doing and the greater incentive they have brought forward. But there is a long way to go and this is an old problem. I look forward to the answers that the noble Lord gives.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I reassure the Minister that I will be speaking for a considerably shorter time in this debate than I did in an earlier debate this afternoon on the levelling-up fund. I am also afraid to say that I have a complete absence of cricketing metaphors in my vocabulary, but I am looking forward to Wales winning the grand slam on Saturday.
The instrument before the Committee simply reduces statutory fees in relation to energy data. It has the support of this side of the Committee, but I would appreciate clarification from the Minister in a few areas.
First, considering the application of these regulations to both England and Wales, can the Minister confirm the role of the Welsh Government in the drafting process? Secondly, can the Minister detail how the Government decided on a fee of £1.64 when data is lodged for domestic properties and £1.89 for non-domestic properties? Finally, can the Minister confirm whether his department has estimated the impact of these regulations on compliance with energy performance certificates?
I also briefly raise the Government’s broader green homes agenda, of which this is a part. Earlier this month, the Public Accounts Committee said that the Government have no plans to meet climate change targets. Can the Minister confirm whether this is true? If not, how will the Government urgently support homeowners as part of a green transition to tackle the climate crisis?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody for this short debate in Grand Committee considering the draft regulations and for the many cricketing metaphors, as well as the reference to the important rugby match taking place at the weekend. I am sure we can all agree that this is one of the shorter and easier instruments that we have been asked to debate.
The proposed statutory instrument will reduce the fees that are chargeable when statutory data is lodged to the energy performance of buildings register. The reduction is possible because the Government have invested in modernising the register by using new information technology and the latest software development techniques. The register service is now hosted on a cloud-based digital platform that is managed in-house, with lower running costs, the benefit of which can be passed on to fee-payers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, asked how the fees were calculated. Noble Lords will be reassured that we aim for a cost-neutral service over time. As I said in my opening speech, there is no desire to profit from this. The fee modelling indicates that the data lodgement fees can be reduced, and the cost of the service has been calculated in line with government policy as set out in Managing Public Money from Her Majesty’s Treasury. The registered service costs from April 2021 to March 2022 have been modelled at £2.25 million, and our forecast fee income over the same period will deliver approximately the same amount from a projection of approximately 1.36 million data lodgements.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I say that there are very clear benefits from these EPCs. They provide policy-makers and markets with information about the energy efficiency of the building stock as well as supporting and encouraging individuals to make informed choices about how to improve the energy efficiency of their building. Increasingly, government policies such as minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector, the renewable heat incentive, which supports installation of renewable energy production, and the Green Deal, which supported installation of energy efficiency measures, have relied on buildings having a current EPC and being linked to achieving a specific EPC rating. The most recent green homes grant, which helps with installing energy-efficient and low-carbon heating improvements to homes, also makes use of the recommendations set out in the EPC where one is available for the property concerned. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the Government are delivering an action plan to explore better ways to identify non-compliance and review penalties, provide better consumer information and improve the quality assurance of EPCs, including better oversight, accountability and formal error reporting.
I am surprised that both my noble friends in energy efficiency—the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan—talked about the difficulty of accessing the data. My understanding is that there is open public access to the register and on the website you can access records by address search or EPC reference numbers, so it should not be too difficult to access the information.
I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his policy ideas. One can see that he has tremendous experience of heading up policy thinking, and indeed implementing it as a very distinguished Cabinet Minister. Retrofit is important, but that policy area is very much led on by BEIS, and it would certainly require some thinking about how to operate that. Of course, as he pointed out, any changes to the way we collect the stamp duty land tax would require support from the Treasury. It is an important point that we consider ways in which we can drive the agenda of getting homes to be more energy efficient, and obviously, as he outlines, the existing stock requires retrofitting. However, I will take forward his policy ideas with some enthusiasm. I completely agree with the broad point that very often tax incentives are a better way of achieving policy objectives than direct grant funding.
In response to my noble friend Lord Moynihan, I take the opportunity to highlight that the Government have a plan around this. We set the future homes standard, which is very clear about the need to produce at least 75% lower CO2 emissions than current standards. That is for our homes but, equally, the future building standards consultation, which was launched in January 2021 and which will close on 13 April, will set a future buildings standard. By having these standards and then having a suite of measures, including the energy performance certificate, I am sure that we will be in a position where we can deliver on the Government’s promise of a zero-carbon economy.
I have certainly done my measured best to deal with the variety of questions that have been thrown at me from my colleagues. If I have not done so, I am happy to follow up with them in writing if necessary. I hope that noble Lords have found the debate informative and will join me in supporting these regulations.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, despite my having a wealth of cricketing metaphors, the umpire will put the Question. The Question is that this Motion be agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Caine) (Con)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 4.30 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down, and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Change of Expiry Date) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Change of Expiry Date) Regulations 2021
Relevant document: 46th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 11 February. We have shared a long and difficult journey since restrictions were first needed in March 2020. As individuals, we have had to endure the very necessary but nonetheless difficult requirement to socially distance, with limits on where we can go, what we can do and who we can see. That, of course, has had an impact on businesses, with many having to close temporarily, and many more being able to trade only under very tight restrictions.
I am sure noble Lords all shared my sense of optimism when, on 22 February, the Prime Minister was able to set out the road map for the staged lifting of restrictions in England, with plans for Scotland and Wales being published by the devolved Administrations soon after. We can at last look forward to a return to normality in the months ahead. This would not have been possible without our wonderful NHS workers, both in their caring for sufferers from the virus and in their astonishing efficiency in the successful rollout of our unprecedented vaccination programme. Over the next few weeks, businesses that have been closed for many months will be able to reopen and trade, initially subject to certain limitations but, if all goes well, free of restrictions in parts of Great Britain from late June.
Noble Lords will recall that the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 provided urgent support for businesses severely impacted by the effects of the pandemic. Temporary measures such as suspension of the use of statutory demands and restrictions on winding-up petitions, and the suspension of personal liability for wrongful trading, were put in place to allow viable businesses the best possible opportunity to survive.
New insolvency and business rescue procedures were also introduced, which will allow companies breathing space to decide on the best course of action in the face of financial distress, or to use a new formal restructuring process. As a contingency, and to enable the Government to rise to meet unexpected challenges and strains on the corporate insolvency regime as a result of the pandemic, the Act provided the Secretary of State with a general power to make temporary amendments or modifications to the effect of specified insolvency and governance legislation through regulations.
This power was needed because at that time we just did not know what the future would bring. We had hoped, of course, that the pandemic would have run its course by autumn last year, but, sadly, as we all know, that turned out not to be the case. The general power meant that the Government could act quickly to make the urgent changes needed to prevent unnecessary insolvencies, to allow the regulatory and administrative frameworks to deal with any impact of the pandemic on case numbers, and to mitigate the impact of the legislation on the duties of those with corporate responsibility.
As this was such a wide power, its use was restricted. It can be used only for the purposes I have just mentioned, and only where the temporary change was in response to the impact of the pandemic. The general power can be used only where the need is urgent, the provision being made is a proportionate response to the challenge being met, and exercising that power is the only way to achieve the desired outcome. In addition, the Secretary of State has a duty not only to assess the impact of using the power on those affected by any changes but to keep any regulations made using the power under review and to revoke them if they are no longer needed.
The legislation creating this general power also specified that it would sunset on 30 April 2021, although that date could be extended by further regulation. The original expiry date for the general power was set when we all hoped that the pandemic would be over and life would return to normal by the autumn. It would allow the power to be used while businesses were recovering and adapting to life after the virus.
While we were of course hoping to be free of restrictions in June, businesses have suffered the impacts of the virus for a year now, and we may need to be able to use the general power while the economy recovers. The unprecedented package of Government support which has been put in place has so far allowed as many otherwise viable businesses as possible to survive, saving jobs and livelihoods in the process. But there is of course no question of it being business as usual as soon as lockdown restrictions are fully lifted. Indeed, the Office for Budget Responsibility is not expecting the economy to have fully recovered until the middle of next year.
These regulations use a power in Section 24(3) of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 to extend the sunset date of the general power, and will mean that the Secretary of State will be able to use it for a further year. Extending the period during which we can use the general power will mean that we can continue to be able to act quickly should the need arise, to give the best opportunities to allow viable businesses to survive the pandemic, and, in the process, save jobs and livelihoods.
The general power could, in addition, be essential to any strategy that we need to deal with any extraordinary pressures on the administrative and regulatory regimes. I can reassure noble Lords that the Government’s ability to extend the life of the general power is not open-ended. In particular, any further extension of the power is limited by Section 24(4), which prohibits the power being exercised after 24 June 2022—that is to say, for two years, starting with the day after the Act conferring the general power was passed.
It is important to note that these regulations do not introduce a new power but rather extend an existing one which we think is still needed. The general power has been used once since its creation to revive the suspension of personal liability for wrongful trading when national restrictions were reintroduced late last year. That suspension has not been extended, due to the apparent improvement in trading conditions at the time of its expiry at the end of September.
There are no specific plans to use the power again at present, but this could of course quickly change, and it remains an essential part of our toolkit in dealing with the impact of the pandemic on business. I commend these draft regulations to the House.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his explanation of these regulations, which extend the powers to regulate that we agreed last year during our lengthy debates on the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act for a further year, until April 2022.
We know from the report by our hard-working Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that the power has been used only to suspend temporarily the personal liability incurred by company directors through wrongful trading. As my noble friend said, that has not been renewed, so I cannot see why a wide-ranging power of this kind needs to be extended—and extended for a whole year. If necessary, I would have favoured a more focused provision and a six-month extension.
It is dangerous to take too much power in regulations. I do not favour the method apparently adopted by the ancient Greek state of Locris, where proposers of law change stood with a noose round their neck, ready to be hung should the proposal be rejected. However, every burden placed on business and society makes someone poorer, and we need to outgrow the juvenile temptation to meddle, using strong, grown-up powers. Perhaps my noble friend can reassure me by outlining the circumstances in which he thinks he might need to use these powers.
From the Back Benches it has seemed that BEIS, the Minister’s department, has dealt with Covid relatively well. Instructed to bring in extensive controls on business, it tried its best to consult and find ways around problems like insolvency and access to business, retail, hospitality and other premises. Several sectors of the economy have kept working better than in the first lockdown. BEIS has also been a critical player in the success of vaccines, which, like all victories, has many fathers, to pick up an observation of President John F Kennedy.
However, the voice of business and economics has not been heard loudly enough. This is part of the reason that the programme of lockdown is far too lengthy. Each day of lockdown takes the country closer to a potential financial crisis, especially as bond yields start to move up. In what amounts to a reverse takeover, the objective of BEIS has become:
“Building a stronger, greener future by fighting coronavirus, tackling climate change, unleashing innovation and making Britain a great place to work and do business.”
There seems to be very little emphasis on the success of British businesses, large or small, which create the wealth and pay the taxes that finance hospitals, schools, transport and social care, let alone unfashionable causes like the police and defence.
In the wider health sphere, our approach to Covid has failed. Our handling of the epidemic, which is not the Minister’s fault, has undone years of progress in the NHS and threatens a decade of excess deaths. According to a left-wing think tank, IPPR, disruption to healthcare will be felt for 10 years. There will be 4,500 needless cancer deaths this year alone and doctors’ appointments are down by 31 million.
In terms of mass suffering, we need to add the impact of the pandemic on mental illness and social care. That does not allow for the agony of people, especially the elderly, being unable to see family and friends. Nor does it count the cost to the young unemployed or to those who have built up businesses only to see them go bankrupt—just visit the centre of a relatively prosperous town like Salisbury, my local town. This contrasts with the United States, which has been more confident, less fearful, kept its economy going well and is on course to match our record in vaccination in a few weeks’ time. Sadly, one has to conclude that it is a better friend to business, innovation and enterprise than we sometimes are.
In closing, I thank my noble friend for his letter of today and ask when we will be able to debate the changes to company law announced by the Business Secretary. As a non-executive company director who takes my responsibilities seriously and as an ex-company secretary, I am alarmed by these proposals. They seem bound to have the perverse effect of discouraging skilled people from taking positions on the boards of companies that need their help. Blaming business, as some seem to be, is not the way to rebuild confidence.
Indeed, unlike parts of government, business has done superbly during the pandemic—think of the food supply chain and the supermarkets, AstraZeneca, construction; think of the adaptability of and investment by pubs and restaurants still unable to open.
I am sure that the Minister will not wish to reply now, but I urge him to prepare a full impact assessment, not only of the benefits of these proposals but of all the risks and the costs including, perversely, the extra accountancy charges that businesses will have to pay. We need to think very carefully about these changes and consider what could be achieved by better enforcement of existing rules.
More broadly, we need an end to the fantasy that we can make things work perfectly by passing new laws. I know that my noble friend was a Brexiteer, and that a driver of Brexit thinking was getting rid of EU rules and ending Brussels bureaucracy—a cause I support. It would be unwise now that Brexit is finally secured to abandon this path.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the explanation of the regulations. It is also a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and to add to some of the comments that she has made. I am sure that many businesses welcome the extension of what were supposed to be temporary measures, especially as they struggle to re-establish themselves. At the same time, some may well resent it, because they may argue that it constrains their ability to recover money from some businesses.
Overall, I am inclined to support what the Minister has announced. Nevertheless some industries, such as aviation, hospitality and event management, will need support beyond the period from 2022, and it would be helpful for the Government to consider the specific circumstances of various industries and businesses in considering what happens over the next three to four years. The Government need a transitional plan, as it would give businesses some certainty about what is coming their way in the next two to three years. Many businesses will still face a cliff edge in that, when these measures come to an end, floodgates to insolvency will open. Those unable to pay landlords or suppliers will definitely face an uncertain future so transitional help, focusing on their particular problems, would be helpful.
The Government could and should have done more; they could have increased the survival chances of businesses by reforming insolvency practices and ensuring that unsecured creditors receive a fair share of the debts owed to them, but they have refused to act on that front. The high street is already reeling from bankruptcies. Bonmarché, Cath Kidston, Comet, Flybe, Maplin, Monarch Airlines, HMV, House of Fraser, Payless shoes and Toys“R”Us are just some of the victims of asset-stripping by private equity. Their ranks are now swelled by Debenhams. Private equity invests little in equity and usually installs itself as a secured creditor, which means that it needs to be paid before unsecured creditors can recover anything from the proceeds of the sale of a bankrupt business’s assets. These insolvency arrangements have no economic or moral logic from a national perspective and are based on medieval practices that prioritise the interests of lenders over all other creditors. The Government could and should have investigated the predatory practices of private equity to create breathing space for supply-chain creditors, but they have not done so.
The survival of suppliers is also affected by the collapse of the Arcadia empire, and darker shadows loom on Liberty Steel and others. Most supply-chain creditors will be lucky to get a few pennies in the pound of the debts owed to them, and this will hit their survival chances, just when they need all the resources that they can muster. There is no logic in such insolvency arrangements, whereby the risks of insolvency are not fairly shared. The current arrangements throw a few crumbs to unsecured creditors and strangle many SMEs, which often rely on relatively few customers and stand to recover next to nothing.
The Government should have used the last year to reconstruct insolvency practices, but they did not. Last year, as the Minister knows, Labour put forward proposals for equitable sharing of insolvency risks, which would have ensured that unsecured creditors recovered substantial sums from their bankrupt customers and thus improved their chances of survival. I hope that the Government can still revisit those proposals, because they are worthy of consideration. The suppliers’ chances of survival are further hampered by the Government’s failure to effectively regulate the insolvency industry. Higher insolvency fees and longer time taken by insolvency practitioners to finalise the bankruptcy inevitably harms unsecured creditors.
By January 2021, PricewaterhouseCoopers, acting as special managers assisting the official receiver in the Carillion liquidation, had already collected nearly £60 million in fees. The London Capital & Finance administrators have collected nearly £8 million in fees. I have personally seen invoices from big accounting firms where their partners act as insolvency practitioners; they are charging themselves out at a rate of some £1,500 an hour. There is absolutely no justification whatever for this. Such huge fees directly deplete the amount available to unsecured creditors, but the Government have done nothing to curb such predatory practices. I am not aware of a single insolvency regulator who has even asked any questions about such high fees.
I am sure that the Minister will put up a spirited defence of the Government’s action on the insolvency front. However, they are not even curious about the welfare of unsecured creditors. On 14 January 2021, I asked the Government:
“how much unsecured creditors have been unable to recover from the bankruptcy of their corporate customers”.
On 28 January, the reply was:
“This information is not collated and held centrally.”
The Government have no idea of the size of losses faced by supply chain creditors, far less have they been helping them.
There is no control on insolvency processes, and practitioners can continue to milk distressed businesses for years. On 27 October 2020, the Minister informed me that 7,962 corporate liquidations were still open within five to nine years of commencement; that 3,642 incomplete liquidations dated between 10 and 14 years; and that 14,328 were incomplete even after 15 years. Do the Government know that these prolonged insolvencies destroy supply chains, since the cost of these huge fees is directly borne by unsecured creditors? Secured creditors do not bear a single penny of the cost of the insolvency practitioner. I urge the Government to help unsecured creditors by reforming insolvency practices and clamping down on rapacious practices, thus giving hard-pressed businesses, especially small businesses, a good chance of survival.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Lennie.
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Sikka and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for their contributions to this debate, and I thank the Minister for introducing the new regulations. I do not imagine he thought they would be quite as controversial as they appear to be.
However, the regulations extend the Secretary of State’s powers to modify, temporarily, corporate insolvency or governance legislation in response to coronavirus until 29 April 2022. We repeatedly said during the passage of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 that we supported the changes the Government were making. We called many times for the end date of provisions to be delayed in order to support business through this difficult period. Businesses are still in distress, and the lockdown and business disruption will continue beyond the original date in the provisions—the end of April this year.
The system of business support that was set up for three months has not proven adequate for the length of time that the crisis is continuing. In truth, we do not yet know whether all the restrictions will be lifted after 21 June, when social restrictions are due to be ended. BEIS has said that the one-year extension reflects that, while there is a vaccination programme, with national lockdowns and other restrictions on normal trading continuing, the future impact of the pandemic on business and the insolvency regime remains at least uncertain. The Minister mentioned this in his introduction, but can he clarify whether the other measures in the Act will be extended, such as on wrongful trading?
It is only sensible to maintain the option of further extending the measures in the Act in this way: we have the worst economic recession of any country in the G7. Although the Covid support measures that the Government put in place have given business a stay of execution, we are concerned that we may still see a wave of insolvencies as support is withdrawn and the safety net dissolves.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their interesting and valuable contributions to this debate. The Government’s road map for the staged lifting of restrictions is cause for great optimism, and we can look forward to many businesses, including shops, pubs, and restaurants, being able to reopen successfully in April. But we have to recognise that these businesses and many others have suffered from the impact of the pandemic for a year now, and in many cases could take time to return to full pre-Covid financial health. The Government are determined to do whatever they can to continue to support businesses throughout this period of economic recovery. For example, many business owners and employees will have welcomed the Chancellor’s statement in the Budget that the furlough scheme will be extended to September this year.
All the same, traders and company directors will be having to assess whether full recovery of their businesses in a post-Covid economy is possible, and government financial support, along with the temporary easements in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act, must at some point be brought to an end. Having a power to use regulations to make temporary amendments to corporate insolvency and governance legislation, or modifications to its effect, will mean that we can continue to act quickly to meet the challenges which arise as a result of these uncertain times.
This was illustrated when the power was used to revive the suspension of personal liability for wrongful trading. This was a Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 provision which had expired at the end of September last year when trading conditions for many businesses had improved. Other temporary easements in the Act had been extended, but given the importance of wrongful trading as a protection for creditors and a deterrent to trading when insolvency proceedings are inevitable, the suspension was allowed to expire.
Sadly, as noble Lords will recall, there was a surge in infection levels in late October leading to national restrictions being reintroduced across Great Britain and businesses once again being required to close their doors. As a result, many company directors were once more faced with great uncertainty about their companies’ futures. Using the power to revive the suspension of wrongful trading meant that directors of companies which would have been viable but for the impact of the pandemic were able to make decisions as to whether they should continue to trade based solely on their knowledge and experience, rather than under the threat of becoming liable to contribute to the company’s debts themselves should insolvency proceedings then follow. This meant that unnecessary insolvencies could be avoided and is an example of how the power could be used going forward to save jobs and livelihoods.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe asked why we need the power for a further year. Although we now have a road map for the lifting of restrictions, the impact on businesses will continue after return to what we would call normality. The OBR predicts that the economy is unlikely to return to pre-Covid levels before the middle of next year, so we need to keep the power on the statute book until then. My noble friend also asked how we might intend to use the power. I am afraid I must say to her that, at the moment, we just do not know. There are no plans to use the power at present, but it is a contingency and we need to be in a position where we can meet urgent challenges quickly. If the worst happens, as the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, indicated, we may need the power as part of our strategy to deal with any increases in insolvency case numbers.
We also need to keep the power because, although the Prime Minister has now announced a road map for a gradual reopening, the impact of restrictions on businesses is likely to be felt beyond the point that we would consider to be full normality. As I have said, the OBR is expecting the economy to return to pre-Covid levels by the middle of next year, but we do not know for certain what will happen in the meantime. However, we do know that many businesses are struggling and may need protection. If we were to extend for less than a year and, as likely, a further extension was needed, we would be back here debating the same question in just a few months because of the requirement for debate before the extension can occur.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe referred to the audit reform proposals. The White Paper published this morning is not, of course, the subject of today’s debate, but I can certainly tell her that we have carefully thought through the director accountability proposals that she referred to. They would cover only the biggest companies, with turnovers into the hundreds of millions, and employing hundreds, or even thousands, of people. I think most people would think it appropriate that we ask directors of such companies to take a little more responsibility for the accounts and financial information produced by their companies. As I said, this will not apply to small business, to SMEs or to entrepreneurs, so I think I can put my noble friend’s mind at rest.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, asked what was being done to prepare for the approaching cliff edge of potential insolvency cases when government support measures and temporary easements end. Official statistics published by the Insolvency Service show that case numbers are still low in comparison with the same period last year, and it seems inevitable that there will be an impact on insolvency case numbers. This is being closely considered, and extending the power for a further year will allow any temporary changes needed to be made quickly. I thank the noble Lord for reminding the Government of the importance of closely monitoring the operation of the insolvency practitioner regulation regime.
The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, asked whether the other measures introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act would be extended. We are considering that question at the moment, and I hope that we will be in a position to make an announcement shortly. I thank the noble Lord for asking about the other temporary measures in the Act, and I can assure him that they too are under close consideration; any announcement will be made shortly.
I think I have addressed all the points raised in the debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I commend these draft regulations to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee stands adjourned until 5.30 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Financial Reporting Council (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Reporting Council (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2021.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Financial Reporting Council (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2021, which was laid before the House on 8 February 2021, be approved.
The Financial Reporting Council, or the FRC, as I shall refer to it, is an independent regulator. It is responsible for regulating auditors, accountants and actuaries, and setting the UK’s corporate governance and stewardship codes. Following corporate failures such as BHS and Carillion, the Government have been working to understand and address shortcomings within the UK audit environment, including the role that the FRC as the regulator plays. As a result, the Government commissioned Sir John Kingman to conduct an independent review of the FRC. This review was commissioned in April 2018 and reported on 18 December 2018.
The FRC review made over 80 recommendations; its central recommendation was for a new, stronger regulator. The review indicated that the new regulator needed to be more transparent than the FRC had historically been and should be held to the same standards as other public sector bodies—including full compliance with the Managing public money handbook. The review also recommended that the FRC be subject to the Freedom of Information Act and the Regulators’ Code. These findings were supported by the Government and welcomed by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee in another place.
Since the FRC review reported, the regulator has undertaken significant steps to strengthen its capabilities. Under new leadership, it has also begun to build the additional capacity needed to deliver on the ambitious mandate set out by the review. The FRC has also worked to streamline its governance structures and expand its stakeholder engagement. This order builds on the FRC’s progress in taking the non-legislative steps needed to implement the review’s recommendations on its internal workings.
Today represents another important milestone for audit and corporate governance reform. I am pleased that today we have published the Government’s White Paper Restoring trust in audit and corporate governance. It sets out a comprehensive and ambitious vision for reform of the corporate landscape and outlines the Government’s detailed proposals for further reform of the regulator. The instrument’s legislative measures are a further step forward on the path to transforming the FRC into a new, strengthened regulator. They apply the Freedom of Information Act, the Regulators’ Code and the public sector equality duty to the FRC.
I turn first to the application of the Freedom of Information Act to the FRC. As identified by the FRC review, currently only some of the FRC’s statutory functions are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Since December 2019, however, the FRC has voluntarily complied with the provisions of the Act across the range of its work. This measure designates the FRC as a public authority for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act so that all of its public functions are covered by the Act.
The Freedom of Information Act provides a general right of access to the public for information held by public authorities, subject to the exemptions set out in the Act. Public authorities are also obliged under the Act to produce and maintain a publication scheme approved by the Information Commissioner. The FRC was consulted on the application of the Freedom of Information Act and it supported the application of the Act to its public functions. Since the FRC is a public body, it is reasonable and proportionate that this measure is taken to apply the Freedom of Information Act to its public functions. In doing so, it will help to underpin trust and confidence in the regulator.
I turn now to the Regulators’ Code measure. The FRC is already subject to the code in respect of some of its regulatory functions. This order will apply the Regulators’ Code to all of the FRC’s regulatory functions, except for those that it has delegated to the relevant professional bodies. The code aims to encourage proportionate and consistent regulatory activity; it also promotes trust, open dialogue and accountability between the regulator and those that it regulates. Application of the code by legislation will enable the FRC to be more accountable and bring it into line with other regulators who are subject to the code in this way. It will encourage greater transparency for regulatory delivery, allowing the FRC to target its resources better. This in turn will support the FRC’s delivery of high standards of audit, reporting and governance in the UK. The Government have worked closely with the FRC and the relevant professional bodies and have consulted them regarding this measure. All the parties consulted support the application of the Regulators’ Code to the FRC through secondary legislation.
I turn to the public sector equality duty measure, which will add the FRC to the list of public bodies that are formally subject to this duty. At present, the FRC is subject to the public sector equality duty only in respect to the exercise of its public functions. The measure expands this so that the FRC itself will be subject to the public sector equality duty in respect of all of its functions. Sir John Kingman’s review of the FRC recommended that the regulator should fully consider and assess equalities impacts in its work. This measure will support that recommendation.
Those subject to the equality duty must: eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by or under the Equality Act 2010; advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. The term “protected characteristic” refers to those characteristics covered by the equality duty and includes age, disability, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation and gender reassignment. This order means that the FRC will need to consider the objectives of the public sector equality duty in its oversight of those it regulates. Additionally, as the FRC is the regulator that sets the UK Corporate Governance Code, it promotes diversity reporting to the UK’s largest companies. It would only be right that the FRC itself was subject to the public sector equality duty in full. This measure will ensure that equality is considered as an important aspect of the regulator’s day-to-day activities.
In March 2019, in their 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 stronger regulator underpinned by legislation. It will have stronger enforcement powers and will be funded by a mandatory levy on the industry that it regulates. The White Paper published today sets out the Government’s proposals in more detail. The Government intend to bring forward the necessary primary legislation to create the new regulator when parliamentary time allows. But we want to press forward with measures such as those in this draft instrument. They do not need to and they should not wait. These measures will ensure that the FRC is more transparent and accountable to the public as well as to the businesses and professions it regulates. It will also bring the FRC into line with the requirements of similar public bodies. These measures are therefore a further step down the road to creating the new regulator.
I conclude by emphasising that I see the measures contained in this order as important since they will help to bring about greater transparency on the part of the FRC. I hope that noble Lords will support them and commend the draft order to the House.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a fellow of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, which in some areas is subject to regulation by the FRC. I thank the Minister for his detailed introduction. To a certain extent he has shot my fox. I was intrigued as to the conjunction of these two events—the publication of the White Paper and the statutory instrument today—and he has made it absolutely plain that it was not a coincidence. It was a coincidence to me but, clearly, it was part of a deeper plan, and I feel that it might have been better if those who like myself were coming from outside to the issue had understood that beforehand. My contribution might have been a bit more effective. But still, it is right and proper that the Government should do what they can to implement proposals in this area, and I support the regulations.
Could the Minister say a little more about the timing of the process? It is happening now, but it is happening to an organisation that is on its way out. We are to have the new audit, reporting and governance authority which the Government say will have these clearly defined roles, one of which is to protect and promote the interests of investors, other users of corporate reporting and the wider public interest. How do those things tie together? Could we have a few brief remarks about that?
There are three substantive parts to the order. First, there is the public sector equality duty, which obviously is something that we agree with. The issue of why it was not done before comes to mind, but we shall pass over that. The second leg of the instrument is the extension of the freedom of information requirements. Obviously, that is to be welcomed as well. However, the Minister seemed to imply that all the relevant statutory functions of the FRC and its successor will be subject to the requirements, but all we have is a list—and when we are given a list I always wonder what is not on it. Is there any way for the Minister to explain what has not been included and, if it has not been included, why it has not been? If it is all there, that is fine, but an assurance that that is the case would be welcome.
I just want to say a bit more about the third leg, which is the obligation to follow the principles in Section 21 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 and under Section 22 to follow a code of practice. I want to highlight the key part. In fact, Section 21 is very brief and pretty vague; it says that the principles are that
“regulatory activities should be carried out in a way which is transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent”.
Well, yes, of course they should. It then says that
“regulatory activities should be targeted only at cases in which action is needed”.
But if you put the converse to those principles, you are left a bit in the air. Are there really people out there keen to apply regulatory activities to cases where action is not needed? It is a statement of the obvious.
We have to turn to the Regulators’ Code for a bit more substance. This puts a bit more meat on the bones of the principles. It is interesting to see that the regulators’ purpose is supposed to be:
“to regulate for the protection of the vulnerable, the environment, social or other objective.”
That is just one of the principles in the code, and those are fairly lofty objectives.
The code also says:
“When designing and reviewing policies, operational procedures and practice, regulators should consider how they might support or enable economic growth for compliant businesses and other regulated entities, for example, by considering how they can best … understand and minimise negative economic impacts of their regulatory activities”.
It also says that there should be
“simple and straightforward ways to engage with those they regulate”.
That is all fine and dandy, but this is what the Regulators’ Code says at the end, on the final page, about monitoring the effectiveness of the code:
“The Government will monitor published policies and standards of regulators subject to the Regulators’ Code, and will challenge regulators where there is evidence that policies and standards are not in line with the Code or not followed.”
I suppose that, to an extent, the White Paper is a reflection of the Government’s intention, but I think that the word “monitor” implies something more regular and consistent. So the one big question I am raising today is this: do the Government actually have a system for monitoring all the work of all the regulators subject to the code? There are a lot of them—I understand that—but what is the Government’s approach to monitoring their activities? How can we avoid the situation that we have with the FRC, whereby things got to a pretty pass before action was taken? Maybe a more consistent, measured and regular approach to enforcing the code would be appropriate.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced this statutory instrument, and I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies. His final point was very interesting, and I would be interested to hear how the Minister will address the issue of how one monitors the regulators. As the noble Lord said, there are so many of them. What they do is important, and they need to be held to account.
On one level this is a perfectly straightforward SI, imposing three new and perfectly reasonable duties on the FRC. But the anomaly is the FRC itself. In December 2018, in his review of the organisation, Sir John Kingman described it as the equivalent of
“a rather ramshackle house, cobbled together with all sorts of extensions over time.”
In other words, it was not fit for purpose—a verdict that the Government themselves accepted the following March, in welcoming the review.
They were equally supportive of the findings of the Competition and Markets Authority, which called for significant changes to the way in which the audit profession operates in the UK. Indeed, the Queen’s Speech in December 2019 stated as one of its priorities the reform of auditing.
What we have here is just another extension to that rather ramshackle house, which is becoming increasingly unstable. I know that the Minister acknowledged the need for root and branch reform, and for the new regulatory authority that will eventually come to us, but here we are, in March 2021, debating a minor SI relating to the still-extant FRC.
The letter that we received this afternoon—what a wonderful coincidence of timing—tells us that the White Paper is coming out and that there will be reform. It all sounds very promising, but my first question to the Minister has to be: when does he think, realistically, that we might see legislation on this, and the emergence of the new accounting regulation and governance authority?
In the meantime, we remain dependent on the FRC to conduct this crucial work and its governance is in flux. In October 2019, Simon Dingemans took over as interim chairman. This turned out to be even more of a temporary post than most had expected; in May the following year, he was lured away by private equity. He was replaced, although not until the following October, by Keith Skeoch but this was declared to be for a term of no more than six months. My second question to the Minister is: does he have a successor lined up for 12 April? It seems that the FRC will be with us for a while to come and, at the moment, I am unaware of who is going to be leading it.
It is important that the equality duty in this SI should certainly be imposed, as the Kingman review found that very few roles at the FRC actually went through an appropriate recruitment process. That might have done more to improve the gender pay gap there, which is still quite pronounced. Reform of the organisation is clearly needed urgently, as is reform of the audit profession. It continues to disappoint. In 2018, the fines levied by the FRC against the big four accountancy firms trebled. Last year, a record fine of £15 million was levied against Deloitte. But it does no good for the credibility of the audit profession if all of the big four firms are regularly seen to be guilty of misleading accounts, and misleading the investing public—and the public more generally.
The proposal we have seen in the White Paper is that there should be compulsory joint audits. But the original suggestion was that the smaller audit firm taking part in these joint audits should be jointly liable, with the larger firm, for anything that went wrong and resulted in action and fines. As far as I can see, that is absolutely unworkable. As my third and final question, can the Minister say whether he believes that there will be equal liability on these smaller firms—the challenger firms—that will be brought into joint audits, or that a more reasonable system of liability will be brought into play?
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will make my comments in two parts. I will comment first on the legislative order and, secondly, taking my suit from the Minister, say a few words about the White Paper as well. On the legislative order, the Financial Reporting Council has really led a shadowy existence for far too long. Since 2004, the FRC has had the status of a public body and should therefore have been subjected to the full application of the freedom of information legislation, but it was not.
On 29 June 2018, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy told the House of Commons, in a Written Answer:
“All our regulatory bodies are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 with the exception of the Financial Reporting Council which is subject to the Act for some but not all of its functions.”
Over the years, I have put in many freedom of information requests to the FRC, some relating to the secondment of staff from the big four accounting firms, its complaints procedures and the quality of investigations. Every one of them was rejected so it is good, to some extent, to see a modicum of openness. I assure the Minister that I shall soon test this new-found openness and see how far it goes. Nevertheless, I have a number of concerns about the legislative order and, more importantly, its omissions.
First, despite the government claim, which I just cited, that all our regulatory bodies are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, why are the four accountancy trade associations acting as recognised supervisory bodies not within the scope of freedom of information legislation? The four trade associations are the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, the Chartered Accountants Ireland, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. They carry out public functions and are named as regulators in the Companies Act 2006. They licence, monitor and discipline auditors. Their role is similar that of the FRC. So why are they totally exempt from freedom of information requirements?
Secondly, Article 4(1)(c) of the order refers to “accounting standards” but no mention is made of “auditing standards”, which are also issued by the FRC. I hope the Minister can shed some light on that omission.
Thirdly, Article 4(1)(m) of the order refers to:
“providing independent oversight of the regulation of the accountancy profession”.
No further details are anywhere to be seen. Is it reasonable to assume that in the Government’s view the FRC is now responsible for ensuring good governance of all accountancy trade associations?
Fourthly, despite claims of openness, or advances in openness, the FRC, which, as was mentioned, will soon morph into ARGA, has in fact regressed in some areas. Let me provide two examples. The first is its press release dated 2 April 2020 with the headline
“Sanctions against KPMG and a partner”
and the second is dated 6 November 2020 and headed
“Sanctions against Deloitte and a partner”.
In both cases, the firm delivering the failed audit has been named, but unlike the past practice, the identity of the company receiving the poor audit has been concealed. Why is that? Do the stakeholders of those companies not deserve to know that dud audits have been delivered? Armed with that information they can question auditors and directors, and make informed decisions about auditor appointment, fees, investment, credit, reliance on the audited information and much more. The FRC’s regression is not compatible with the Government’s claim of new openness at the FRC.
Fifthly, the so-called openness at the FRC is not accompanied by open board meetings. I am sure the Minister would acknowledge that the FRC does not discuss troop movements or the position of spy satellites, so this obsession with secrecy and keeping the people out is hard to understand. In the US, the Financial Accounting Standards Board holds all its meetings in the open and makes full minutes and background papers available to any interested party. The same is also true of the Swedish Accounting Standards Board. As we know, openness always promotes public confidence and accountability, so why are the Government afraid of writing in open board meetings in the current legislative draft or in some other ways? Why is the UK to be a laggard in such matters?
Sixthly, the FRC publishes its board minutes, but they are sanitised and have virtually no information content—I have seen them. Paradoxically, individuals sitting on its board and various committees come from corporations and big law and accounting firms and have full access to all inside information. It must inevitably inform their worldviews and policy options discussed within their organisations. Yet the other stakeholders affected by the FRC’s decisions and policy choices do not have access to the same information and must therefore be disadvantaged in any negotiations, lobbying and framing of accounting and auditing rules. Why are the Government content with this kind of information apartheid? It is almost legalised.
Seventh, the legislative order before us is full of words such as “independent” and I struggle to know what the Government mean. The FRC is not independent of corporations and big accounting firms as their personnel have colonised the FRC board, committees, working parties and its world views. Corporate thinking informs the FRC’s operation and, inevitably, there is cognitive capture. Neither is the FRC independent of the International Accounting Standards Board, which issues international accounting standards that in many cases are simply rubber stamped by the FRC. I am sure the Minster is aware that the IASB is an offshoot of the IFRS Foundation, which is registered in the US state of Delaware for the sole reason of avoiding taxes on all the income and charitable donations it receives. Is that a good way to be setting accounting standards, with somebody holed up in Delaware and keen to avoid taxes? That is not really appropriate.
It would be helpful to know what exactly the FRC is independent of. What are the tests the Government will specify we should apply to test whether the FRC passes those marks? It would also be helpful for the Minister to tell us whether any part of the FRC’s operations are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act and why they are excluded.
I will say a few words about the White Paper. For the last 20 years, the auditing industry has led a charmed life. Most of the urgently needed reforms have been postponed. The White Paper does not really tackle any of the fundamental issues. I am sure the Minister is aware that the FRC has said that up to 80% of the audits in its samples are deficient. Can you imagine if any producer of cars, aeroplanes, medicines or food had an output that was 80% deficient? That industry would be put out of business and taken into special care, not allowed to play its selfish games.
In my view, the White Paper misses the fundamental points and it does not address those things. In the White Paper there is a memorable line about share- holders being company owners. Can the Minister refer me to any economic theory, legal theory, or anything in the Companies Act which says that shareholders are owners of companies? Shareholders may have controlling rights, but they have absolutely no ownership; that is something entirely different. For the last 100 years we have been relying on shareholders. Where exactly has that got us?
I was an adviser to the Work and Pensions Committee for the investigation of BHS. Shareholders appointed the auditors and everybody else, and we all know what the outcome was. In many ways the Government are reciting the past failures and repeating the past mistakes—
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
Can I remind the noble Lord of the 10-minute speaking limit?
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this and my noble friends Lord Davies and Lord Sikka for their comments, particularly the comment made by my noble friend Lord Davies about the monetary not the monitors, and the comments of my noble friend Lord Sikka about freedom, secrecy and independence. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for her examination of the FRC being unfit for purpose and its gender gap issues.
The regulations impose new duties and regulatory requirements on the Financial Reporting Council, which is currently the independent regulator responsible for regulating auditors, accountants and actuaries and setting the UK’s corporate governance and stewardship code. These regulations impose specific duties on the FRC relating to freedom of information, the Regulators’ Code and the public sector equality duty. However, as Sir John Kingman’s review in December 2018 made clear, it was an institution with “leaks and creaks” and required fundamental reform.
We were first promised a new audit, reporting and governance authority in 2019, but the Government have since dithered on that promise. The Minister in the other place today published a White Paper to try to put an end to corporate scandals. We will examine it closely in due course and respond in detail, but it appears at the outset that the Government are rowing back from the proposals to tighten corporate reporting requirements. When exactly do the Government intend to legislate? The SI does not give much hope that it will be any time soon, and the White Paper consultation is set to run until July 2021.
I have some initial questions about the new proposals. The new regulator will be established as a company limited by guarantee. How was this decided? The Government note that the largest audit firms are already working with the Financial Reporting Council to implement the CMA recommendations on a voluntary basis by 2024. How is that work progressing? The Government disagree that the regulator intervening to take over the running of an audit firm, albeit on a temporary basis, would be proportionate or effective. How did the Government reach that conclusion, and what advice did they receive on that issue?
In 2017, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy concluded that the FRC’s work should comply with all relevant public body guidelines. In 2018, the Government commissioned an independent review that recommended that the regulator be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. A couple of years ago, the FRC voluntarily adopted compliance with the codes, so the SI will not fundamentally change the FRC’s approach, but it is welcome that the compliance is to be put on a statutory footing.
However, with the disbanding of the FRC and its replacement with ARGA, are we not passing this SI somewhat too late? Labour supports the changes but wonders why they are being made now, on the very same day as consultation proposals to give birth to the new audit, reporting and governance authority are published.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. The points that we have been discussing highlight the need for the measures contained in this order and emphasise the beneficial impacts they will have on the Financial Reporting Council and those that it regulates.
Reliable audit and corporate reporting are critical to well-functioning markets, business investment and growth. A transparent and effective regulator has a vital role in assisting the UK economy to realise these benefits. These measures will help the regulator meet the goal of ensuring that the UK maintains and advances its status as a place of the highest standards in audit and corporate reporting. They are a crucial part of the Government’s commitment to acting on the findings of Sir John Kingman’s independent review.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, asked about the timing of the SI given that the FRC is on the way out, and wanted to understand what we might not be applying to the regulator. He also asked how the Government enforce the Regulators’ Code. Establishing the new regulator, ARGA, requires primary legislation, and the Government intend to introduce that when parliamentary time allows. We think it is right to ask the FRC to start now, as we mean the new regulator, ARGA, to go on in this vein.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Lord Callanan (Con)
To resume, the FRC did not start out as a public body. Since its creation in the 1980s, it has slowly accumulated public functions to the point that it has more recently been classified as a public body. Certain statutory functions of the FRC are already subject to the FoI Act. As the FRC is now a regulator acting in the public interest, we think it is right to extend the FoI Act to cover all the FRC’s public functions.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, asked whether the Government have a system for monitoring the work of all regulators. In monitoring these regulators, the FRC is required to report annually to the Secretary of State on its activities relating to the oversight of statutory auditors, and that report must in turn be laid before Parliament. We have proposed yet stronger arrangements in relation to ARGA.
I answered the question the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, asked about when we might realistically see legislation. The answer to that is, I am afraid, the standard one: when parliamentary time allows. Now that we have published the White Paper setting out our intentions for the new regulator, the Government will recruit a permanent chair of the FRC. We are making these changes as laying the foundation for the new regulator, not extending the FRC’s house.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, also asked why we are still waiting for these changes. We are intending to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allow us, and ARGA will of course come into being thereafter. However, I cannot give any guarantees as to when it is likely that will be.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, raised a number of comments about the order. The FoI Act obliges public authorities to publish certain information about their activities, and entitles members of the public to request information from public authorities. As RSBs are independent professional bodies rather than regulators, we do not believe it would be proportionate to subject them to the Freedom of Information Act.
On the point about referring to accounting standards rather than auditing standards, the new UK endorsement board, not the FRC, will be the body to endorse and adopt international financial reporting standards in the UK. The FRC has exercised some oversight of the RSBs, hence this function should be subject to freedom of information. The Regulators’ Code will promote openness at the FRC. Access to the FRC’s board meetings is, of course, a matter for the FRC itself. Although the FRC has staff from companies and the industry, its chair is appointed by the Secretary of State.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, who asked why we disagreed with the regulator taking over the running of a failing auditor, we think this would be a fairly major step and we are not totally convinced of its likely effectiveness.
The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, also raised the point that ARGA will be a company limited by guarantee. The creation of ARGA will be achieved by renaming and reconstituting the FRC, which is a company limited by guarantee at the moment, at the same time as making substantial changes to its functions. The Government will legislate to rename the existing body and make provision for its internal governance, as will be set out in its articles of association. We are clear that ARGA will be a regulator with teeth, backed by legislation. It will be funded by a mandatory levy on industry and given much stronger enforcement powers. The Government consider that this approach has the advantage of minimising the transitional costs which would be involved in setting up a new, statutory corporation.
The important measures in the order ensure that the FRC will be designated as a public authority in respect of its public functions for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act; that all the FRC’s regulatory functions will be subject to the Regulators’ Code; and that the FRC is added to the list of public bodies which are explicitly subject to the public sector equality duty. As a result, its responsibility for adherence will be clear. Compliance on a statutory level with the Freedom of Information Act, the Regulators’ Code and the public sector equality duty will ensure that the FRC is made more transparent and accountable to those that it regulates. It will support the FRC’s effective operation and bring the regulatory requirement in line with similar public bodies. It will also further strengthen its regulated status as a public body.
Establishing the new regulator will, of course, require primary legislation. As I said, the Government will introduce this when parliamentary time allows. In the meantime, the FRC has made some progress on the recommendations from Sir John Kingman’s review and those proposals can be implemented without legislation, in parallel with this order. The FRC recognises the significant role that it has to play in paving the way for the new regulator. Building trust in the UK’s audit, accounting and corporate reporting regulator is an essential part of the Government’s programme of work to reform audit and corporate reporting. Our proposals, published today, set out how we will achieve this.
Meanwhile, applying the measures in the order now to the FRC builds on other progress, and it does so through statute. It shows that the Government are committed to putting in place the right degree of transparency and oversight for the work of an important regulator. I recommend this draft order to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
That completes the business before the Grand Committee today. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them brief and confined to two points. I ask that Minister’s answers are also brief.
Office of Communications: Chair
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foster of Bath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to appoint a new Chair of the Office of Communications.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the process to appoint a new permanent chair of Ofcom is currently under way. The process will be fair, open and robust. As with all public appointments, it will be conducted in line with the governance code and regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The preferred candidate will also appear in front of the DCMS Committee. The Government are committed to finding an outstanding individual, and we very much encourage all qualified candidates to come forward.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Given that one of the most important functions of Ofcom is to uphold the broadcasting impartiality regime which lies at the heart of our most trusted media, such as the BBC, does she agree that it would be unacceptable for the new chair to be someone with a long record of extreme political partisanship, and who, as a newspaper editor, presided over such headlines as “Enemies of the People” in relation to our trusted and independent judiciary, and “Crush the Saboteurs” in relation to those who voiced opposition to Brexit?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that I am not going to speculate on any potential candidate for the role, but I absolutely agree that it is critical that Ofcom remain impartial, independent and an evidence-based regulator.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register. Does my noble friend agree that just as important as the new chair of Ofcom are the new powers that Ofcom will have? The regulator will have significant extra responsibilities following online harms legislation and will have a vital role in working with the new digital markets unit to ensure that the platforms are subject to fair competition. Can she tell us what progress is being made on bringing forward the online harms legislation and, crucially, a Bill to give the digital markets unit the statutory powers it needs, particularly in the area of payment for content?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is right that it will be extremely important in future for Ofcom to co-ordinate its activities with other digital regulators, including the new digital markets unit being set up in the CMA. We are working at pace to prepare the online harms legislation, which will be ready later this year. In December, the Government received advice from the CMA on design and implementation of the new regime. We are carefully considering this and will consult on it as soon as possible.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, we all remember the foundation of Ofcom, when all it was about was spectrum allocations and channel licensing—and now it has the BBC as well. However, the biggest elephant in the communications room is the urgent need for social media regulation, given its regularised misinformation and distortion of reality. Will the new chair and the ever-expanding Ofcom take on this duty, and should media literacy better fit with Ofcom than Ofsted?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Ofcom is the Government’s preferred regulator for the new online harms regime and the new legislation, which will be introduced later this year. The Government will announce their media literacy strategy later this year.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of concern about the Government’s stated attitude to the BBC and, indeed, to public service broadcasting generally? Ofcom has been particularly successful to date. Does the Minister agree that it would be a tragedy for the high standards of British television broadcasting if we lost the traditions we have had and denigrated the standards to those of Fox?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government are supportive of a modern system of public service broadcasting that remains relevant and continues to meet the needs of UK audiences in future. Obviously, Ofcom, with its regulatory role in this capacity, is a crucial part of delivering this.
Lord McNally (LD) [V]
My Lords, earlier this week the Government published their external review, which said that the BBC is the most trusted broadcaster in the world. Is it not about time they started showing that they believe that in their statements and policies?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government have been very clear about the value of the BBC, particularly in the pandemic, during which it has served to educate, inspire, inform and act as a crucial and reliable source of news.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
Several noble Lords have already referred to Ofcom’s expanding remit and the additional responsibilities to be introduced through the online safety Bill and the challenges they will bring. What conversations has the Minister had through her department with Ofcom’s new chief executive about the body’s current and future resourcing? Can she assure us that the various changes envisaged in the forthcoming legislation will be accompanied by commensurate increases in staffing budgets, training opportunities and, vitally, political support?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord raises a very important point. Work is already starting within Ofcom to recruit the appropriate skills and experience that will be needed to deliver on the online safety regime, including the recent recruitment of a head of emerging technologies from Google.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister give the House any valid reasons why the committee wants the power of veto over such appointments?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am afraid I do not follow my noble friend’s question, so, if I may, I will write to him.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
They will need an understanding not only of fast broadband connectivity issues in rural areas, which Covid homeworking has highlighted, and the pressing questions of online security and harm, but of the far-reaching changes in the television sector with the streaming of content by international providers such as Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google. Does the Minister accept that the appointment must be future-proof and not given as a reward for yesterday’s achievements?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The role profile for the chair of Ofcom was discussed, including with the DCMS Select Committee, and updated with exactly the intention the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Does the Minister recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, was appointed to an NHS position without any proper scrutiny? Her main qualification was being a member of the Jockey Club. The main qualification of the acting chair of Ofcom, Maggie Carver, is being chair of the Racecourse Association. Can we have an assurance that this appointment will be made in a proper fashion and that the person appointed will have knowledge of the communications industry and not of the racing fraternity?
Baroness Barran (Con)
If the noble Lord looks at the role profile, he will see that it is extremely clear about the level of professionalism and experience required—although, it being Cheltenham week, I cannot exclude racing connections.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, moving away from Cheltenham, does the Minister agree that the only independent member of the board’s being closely associated with the Murdoch stable might make us a little nervous about the results of any appointment?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The process regarding the independent panel member to which the noble Lord refers has been carefully considered. The Commissioner for Public Appointments has approved them and they are recusing themselves from all areas of discussion where they have a conflict of interest.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, what expectations do Her Majesty’s Government have of a new chair of the Office of Communications in enhancing Ofcom’s role in preventing online abuse?
Baroness Barran (Con)
This will be a very important part of the new role, but I stress that the role of the chair is to lead the independent board. It is for the board, together with the chair, to deliver on that responsibility.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Food Prices: Agricultural Policy
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carrington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on food prices of the changes to agricultural policy set out in The Path to Sustainable Farming: An Agricultural Transition Plan 2021 to 2024, published on 30 November 2020; and what plans they have to mitigate any such impact on lower socio-economic groups.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and take the opportunity to declare my farming interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. Our assessment is that consumer food prices are not likely to be significantly affected by farming reforms. The main drivers of food prices include import costs, exchange rates and domestic production and manufacturing costs. We regularly monitor prices, and the food security report will inform any appropriate policy responses. The Government are committed to supporting the most vulnerable in society.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his valuable response. With action necessary to address climate change, biodiversity, food waste, diet, trade issues and much more, it all points to higher food prices, which have a disproportionate effect on the poorest, largest and elderly households. Ensuring a safety net is essential. Who in the Government will be accountable for co-ordinating the actions of departments to achieve the desired but sometimes conflicting outcomes around food, health, farming, land use and trade?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, that is one reason why, since the Covid outbreak, the Department for Work and Pensions has established a working group on the cost of living, where food vulnerability is discussed alongside other issues by all Ministers whose departments have a role in ensuring food security. I accept that farming will have to do many things, one of which is to produce very healthy food. There has been £280 billion of support since March 2020 to families and children, which I think is a good record from the Government.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, has withdrawn so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of concern about the impact of potential trade deals on food prices and quality. Is my noble friend aware of a recent Sustain LSE report which showed that obesity rose in both Mexico and Canada following their trade deals with the United States? Does he agree that, if the Government were tempted to solve the problem of rising food prices by importing cheap, poor-quality food, it would nudge lower-income families into buying it, thereby exacerbating the obesity problem?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Government are very clear that our trade deals will not compromise our food standards. All food, regardless of agreement, will have to meet our import requirements. Clearly, obesity must be addressed. The Government’s strategy of July last year took forward actions of the childhood obesity plan, setting out measures and ambitious targets to halve by 2030 the number of children living with obesity and to get the country fitter and healthier.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, the level of home production could well have an impact on food prices. Can the Minister confirm what assessments the Government have made of the effect that their current policies will have on the level of self-sufficiency of homegrown food? What efforts are the Government making to increase the volume of homegrown food in public sector procurement?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, clearly it is important that there is strong domestic production. We currently produce 66% of our national supply and 77% of indigenous foods. Food production is extremely important and, with Section (1)4 of the Agriculture Act in particular, we will be working with farmers on that as well as on the environmental enhancement we want.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, 8.4 million people in the UK live in food poverty. It is no coincidence that those worst affected are precisely those who were most hard hit by Covid—minority ethnic communities and older and disabled people. Research by the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission, of which I am a commissioner, makes it clear that future agriculture needs to deliver food, particularly fruit and vegetables, that is healthy, environmentally sound and affordable. How will the Government amend the agricultural transition plan, which is strangely silent about food, to prioritise not cheap food but healthy food grown in agroecological systems and ensure that this will be widely available at accessible prices?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, noble Lords will remember, and as I have said, Section 1(4) of the Agriculture Act is precisely to ensure that financial assistance schemes are within that context, and it is the duty of the Secretary of State to consider food production. Our purpose is to ensure that there is healthy food for all to eat at affordable prices.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Government’s ambitious plans to move farmers from direct farm payments to a system whereby they manage their whole business differently to deliver profitable food production and the recovery of nature must be a step in the right direction. However, as other noble Lords have said, we are currently seeing the queues at food banks increasing as people struggle to feed their families. Surely food prices are likely to rise and increase the cost of food for those on low incomes. The Government say they have strategies to deal with this but give no details. Can the Minister give some detail on how feeding those on low incomes will actually happen?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
There are two points. In the last year, food prices have fallen by 0.8% and, as I mentioned, there is the £280 billion of support. Obviously with a successful economy, recovery from Covid and more people returning to work, matters will improve. There will always be a safety net and that is why I mentioned that £280 billion has gone towards supporting the vulnerable.
Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]
Does my noble friend agree that every grain of evidence, from the Corn Laws onwards, shows that free trade and innovation provide more plentiful food, of a higher quality and at a lower price—thank you Aldi, Lidl, Tesco and all the others—and that systems of trade protection in the past have led to higher prices and shortages for poorer families? Does he agree that, once we have sorted out the inevitable adjustments that we face in leaving the protectionist common agricultural policy, British consumers can expect to feed themselves better and for less, rather than paying higher prices to subsidise inefficient farmers in other countries? For the many, not the few, you might say. Do not we all have a great deal to look forward to?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, we will champion free and fair trade and lower barriers at every opportunity. There are great opportunities for British food to be exported. In all the trade agreements that we negotiate, we will stand up for British farming and we will always ensure that the UK FTAs are fair and reciprocal. There is great opportunity for our domestic producers to export as well as have very strong production. Yes, I agree that free trade has been a great success over the centuries.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as we know, the sustainable farming proposals are for England only. The devolved nations are drawing up their own proposals for reform, which could lead to differential food prices across the UK. Can the Minister update the House on the progress of the joint working group set up to carry out market surveillance and ensure that the UK internal market does not end up with winners and losers in the food price sector?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have set up the UK agricultural support framework precisely to ensure that there is non-legislative collaboration and co-operation on agricultural support between the four UK Administrations. We will continue with this effective co-ordination and dialogue, so that the internal market of the UK is secure.
Lord Bird (CB)
Does the Minister agree that a low- wage economy is one reason why we have food poverty? If we look at the agricultural industry, we see some of the lowest wages in the UK. How are we going to square that one? We want cheap food, but we want it by having cheap labour in the countryside.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, agricultural innovation will make a considerable difference to the qualifications and skills of the next generations of agricultural and horticultural workers. This is going to be an area of great expansion.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, sadly the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
China: Treatment of Uighurs and Taiwanese Airspace Incursions
Baroness D'Souza
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to reports of the government of China’s (1) treatment of Uighurs, and (2) incursions into Taiwanese airspace, what discussions they have had with other governments about what action can be taken in response.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the UK has led international efforts to hold China to account for its gross violations of human rights in Xinjiang, working closely with a wide range of international partners. In October, 38 countries joined the UK in a joint statement at the UN, expressing deep and shared concern, sending a powerful message to China. We do not support any action that risks undermining stability in the Taiwan Strait and are in regular touch with partners.
Baroness D'Souza (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister for his Answer. The integrated review of UK foreign policy makes it clear that progress on any of the major issues of today, including democracy and human rights, will be achieved only by co-operating with new and old allies. Will HMG now engage with national, regional and international groups, such as the Five Eyes, the quad, D10 and ASEAN, to deter China from continuing its ever-increasing threats to Taiwan’s sovereignty and the Uighurs’ integrity?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is right to point to the integrated review, which sets out how we will work with international groupings, including our Indo-Pacific tilt and our international leadership of the G7 and COP 26 this year. The UK has led international efforts to hold China to account, including by leading the first two joint statements on this issue at the UN. Last week, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary released a joint statement with his G7 counterparts, expressing their concerns at the continued erosion of rights in Hong Kong.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
Following on from the noble Baroness’s question, is it not true that the Foreign Secretary still thinks that we should continue to trade and not worry too much about human rights, as he said to members of Foreign Office staff yesterday, which was leaked to the Guardian? Secondly, can we take note of what America is doing with companies that are trading with China and other countries that are causing genocide? Should we not be putting on the same pressure and asking the same questions of companies here, particularly those in the garment trade?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness should see what my right honourable friend said in full, at least what he said in his speech at the Aspen Security Forum this week or what we say in the integrated review, which makes clear that open countries such as the UK need to engage with China and remain open to trade and investment. We will engage with confidence, which is important because China is an increasingly important partner in tackling global challenges, including climate change, biodiversity and preventing future pandemics.
Baroness Northover (LD)
Could the Minister be clearer: what comes first, trade deals or human rights?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the integrated review sets out that open trading economies such as the UK need to engage with China, but we must also protect ourselves against practices that have an adverse effect on prosperity and security. We will do so standing up for our values and human rights. The integrated review sets out that these are all held in balance.
Baroness Rawlings (Con) [V]
My Lords, what is the present situation with Her Majesty’s Government joining the quadrilateral security dialogue of the US, Japan, India and Australia? If so, what does the Minister see as our potential role?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, there are no plans for the UK to join the quad although, as set out in the integrated review, we will continue to look positively at ways to increase our engagement with regional security groupings in the Indo-Pacific. We noted with keen interest the outcomes of the first quad summit, convened by President Biden last week, notably on vaccine distribution, climate change and technology co-operation.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, will we be laying before the United Nations Security Council the 25,000-page report on the Uighurs published last week? It said that the Chinese Communist Party had breached every article of the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide. Or will we, as the House of Commons votes on the House of Lords genocide amendment next Monday, continue to shelter behind the fiction of an imaginary judicial mechanism capable of declaring a Uighur genocide—a declaration that has been made by the Canadian and Dutch parliaments, the United States and elsewhere?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
On the noble Lord’s second point, as he knows, it is a long-standing policy of the British Government that any judgment of whether genocide has occurred is for a competent court, rather than governments or non-judicial bodies. The UK has led international efforts to hold China to account at the United Nations, including by leading those first two joint statements on this issue at the UN. The Foreign Secretary addressed the Human Rights Council, in February, calling for China to grant urgent and unfettered access to Xinjiang for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights or another independent fact-finding expert.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister keeps repeating that the UK is leading the way on this issue. Yesterday’s FT reported Antony Blinken, US Secretary of State, identifying 24 officials whose actions have reduced Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy after China passed its law last week. Blinken warned that any financial institutions that had significant business with these officials would also be subject to sanctions, so why can we not mirror our strongest ally on this issue? Why can we not work together?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I repeat the point that the impact of our diplomacy is reflected in the growing number of countries supporting the statements that we are leading at the UN and elsewhere, and that we are working with our closest allies. Earlier this month, the Foreign Secretary issued a statement about the decision to charge Hong Kong politicians and activists. In January, he released a statement with his Australian, Canadian and American counterparts underscoring our concerns at the arrest of politicians and activists under the national security law.
Lord Scriven (LD) [V]
My Lords, when in discussion with other countries, will the Government promote Taiwan as an observer of the UK-proposed D10 alliance?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As the noble Lord knows, the UK’s long-standing policy that we do not recognise Taiwan as a state remains unchanged. But we have a vibrant unofficial relationship and support Taiwan’s participation in international fora where statehood is not a requirement.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
What consideration have Her Majesty’s Government given to the suggestion of a diplomatic and economic, rather than full-scale, boycott of the 2022 Beijing winter Olympics, in response to China’s ongoing repression of the Uighur Muslim minority?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear that we are not normally in favour of sporting boycotts. The broader question of the participation of the national team at the winter Olympics is a matter for the British Olympic Association, which is required to operate independently of the Government under the International Olympic Committee regulations.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to help ensure that no British companies are complicit in the appalling human rights abuse in Xinjiang. However, a BBC investigation earlier this month reported that Uighurs are being forcibly resettled around the country, and women are being sterilised, raped and assaulted. Can my noble friend reassure me that these reports have been taken into account and will be reflected in further government guidance?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her support for the action that we have taken to ensure that UK businesses are not complicit in human rights violations in Xinjiang. They also show China that there is a reputational and economic cost to its policies there. As well as the financial penalties for organisations that fail to comply with the transparency obligations of the Modern Slavery Act, we have funded research to help build the evidence base and provided guidance to help UK businesses to conduct due diligence to ensure that their supply chains are free of forced labour.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, how will the Government ensure supply chain transparency and determine links to Xinjiang and its human rights abuses, so that we have up-to-date evidence that is accessible to members of the public who are rightly concerned about buying ethically? How will the Government commit to full transparency about where official development assistance funding is being used in China, so that no government or taxpayer funds are contributing to these human rights abuses?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
On the noble Baroness’s second point, all UK ODA spend, including to China, complies with the OECD’s ODA rules. Relevant details are provided in the statistics on international development, which are published on GOV.UK. The action that my right honourable friend outlined in January is strengthening the transparency of supply chains for UK consumers and businesses.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister surprised me with a catalogue of compelling evidence, revealed in yesterday’s BEIS Committee report, that many major companies with large footprints in the UK are complicit in the forced labour of Uighurs in Xinjiang. Does he agree that a Minister-led campaign of business engagement—as the noble Lord the Minister of State at the FCDO proposed on 19 January at column 1139—is an insufficient response? Simply put, companies that do not meet their obligations to uphold human rights throughout the supply chains should not be doing business in the UK.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord refers to the work we have been doing to strengthen the overseas business risk guidance to make clearer the risks to UK business. That applies as well to the public sector: we have increased support for UK public bodies to exclude suppliers where there is evidence of human rights violations from their supply chains. He refers to the BEIS Select Committee report, which was published only yesterday in another place, and we will of course look at that with interest. The department will reply to it in the usual way.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next question.
UK-EU Trade
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Adonis
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the United Kingdom– European Union Trade Cooperation Agreement on the reduction in trade with the European Union since 1 January.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) (Con)
My Lords, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement provides for 100% tariff-free and quota-free access to each other’s market for the UK and the EU. It is first trade agreement in the world to do so. A unique combination of facts has made it inevitable that we would see a reduction in trade with the EU in January, and we should use caution in drawing any conclusions from the initial figures released on 12 March.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. We are, of course, where we are, but I am sure he would agree we have a particular problem at the moment with the export of animals, meat and shellfish, where exports are down by between 56% and 83%. Will the Minister agree to meet me and other noble Lords from across the House who are acutely concerned about this issue and wish to see it sorted, including the possibility of the Government negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement similar to that which Switzerland currently enjoys with the European Union?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I am always happy to meet anybody to talk about the issues relating to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. We have, of course, pulled out all the stops to help businesses deal with the changes to our trading relationship with the EU, whether they are operating in these fields, whether they are SMEs or whether they are working in the agri-food or any other area.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, new figures released last week, as the Minister touched on, show that UK exports to the EU have plummeted by 40% since the transition period. Do Her Majesty’s Government take responsibility for that and, more importantly, will the Minister elaborate on the plans to rectify that reduction in trade?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, there are several potential factors affecting trade with the European Union, as well as any direct impact coming from the TCA. There is clear evidence of stockpiling at the end of last year, which will of course affect the flow of trade, and obviously there is the general economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic, which has depressed economic activity in many ways. That is why we must be cautious before drawing any firm conclusions from the January figures.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, the TCA gives us the freedom and the opportunity to develop our own regulatory regime for the City, to maintain and enhance its position as the leading global financial centre. Does the Minister agree that we should be bold and swift in making necessary changes to our EU legacy regulatory framework, while taking a proactive leadership role in international fora such as IOSCO in developing proportionate principles-based rules at the global level? Does he also agree that it will manifestly not be the EU’s interests to continue to try to prevent European companies raising capital and accessing services provided in the UK’s financial markets?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree with the thrust of my noble friend’s question. I endorse his view that we should use our freedom to develop our financial services industry, and the framework that regulates it, over time in a way that suits us, and build the City’s huge advantages as a global financial centre.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, last year I asked the noble Lord, Lord True, what work the Government were doing to forecast an assessment of the various complexities that the Minister referred to. He wrote to me on 19 May, saying:
“A call for evidence will open in the coming months, and we will provide further details in due course. The call for evidence will capture complexity and represent the varying impacts that will be felt across different parts of the economy. We will continue to keep Parliament informed.”
There was no call for evidence, and the Government have not kept Parliament informed. Does there exist any forecast from the Government that shows that by value to the UK economy, UK trade with the EU will grow?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the question of the economic benefits or disbenefits of our relationship with the European Union has been extensively debated over the last few years. There have been many publications on the subject, including from this Government. The economic situation last year, the impact of the pandemic and the huge uncertainties made it very difficult to conduct an analysis. We of course continue to keep this question under very close review.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, there are clearly problems with companies not being used to the new procedures. I know from experience how helpful BEIS and HMRC can be to a European company that has made a pig’s ear of its paperwork. Are their European equivalents being similarly helpful to British companies which have not got the procedures right?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, it is true that there have been some problems and some overzealous enforcement in isolated cases, which have been well publicised. However, I take this opportunity to say that generally the European authorities have been very supportive and pragmatic in the way they have dealt with issues at the border, and we welcome that fact. Operational co-operation with member states, in particular our closest neighbours, has been excellent.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the huge problems in relation to work in Europe confronting our valuable music sector. Jobs have already been lost and tours cancelled as a result of the lack of suitable arrangements in the TCA. Is the Minister aware that the main ask of the performing arts is for a separate, bespoke visa waiver agreement, which would go a long way to resolving key concerns? Will he promise to discuss such an agreement with Maroš Šefčovič at the earliest opportunity?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the Government of course recognise the importance of the UK’s cultural industries. We made proposals during the negotiations last year that would have allowed musicians to travel and perform in the UK and the EU more easily without work permits. They were rejected by the European Union. Now that negotiations are over, we are working with the sector to help it adjust to this new relationship. We have a working group with industry representatives which is feeding into our process. We are of course discussing a range of issues with Maroš Šefčovič as regards the implementation of the TCA.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for agreeing to meet the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, on the issues he raised, but in response to my noble friend Lord McNicol, he seemed reluctant to admit that there was a problem and he certainly did not answer the part of the question about what the solutions were, so I shall try again. Your Lordships’ House has been fully engaged in preparing the UK for its new relationship with the EU. There has been an unprecedented number of documents, Bills and statutory instruments that we have all waded our way through to get to the detail, but all behind ensuring support for the Government’s border plans. Yet here we are, less than three months in, and that model is creaking. The Minister is now tearing up plan A in order to push back implementation dates. Can he tell us what he thinks has gone wrong?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, as I say, it is too early to draw conclusions from any figures in January; there are too many other factors influencing the economic situation. We have always made clear and are assiduously implementing our plans to get businesses the support they need to manage the changes to our trading relationship with the EU. There is a new Brexit support fund and a Brexit business taskforce. We are supporting the fisheries industries and many others through the initial difficulties of the change in relationship.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, rather than trying to deny the reality of the massive drop in exports to the EU, the Government need to address how practical improvements can be made regarding Brexit red tape. So far, their approach to solving border problems is simply to refuse to apply the rules that they agreed to. How will the Government establish trust and a good relationship with Brussels and member states that are essential to getting those improvements to help business and consumers?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, of course we seek a constructive relationship with our European friends in all areas relating to the trade and co-operation agreement, and we look to build a friendly relationship between sovereign equals. That is what we intend to do. That is what we are working towards. We are acting constructively when we can, but we are standing up for our interests when we must.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, after leaving the EU, the UK has the advantage of trading with any country around the world. The EU has already negotiated a trade agreement with China and, considering our present relationship with China on account of human rights, can the Minister tell us whether the UK will be able to sign a trade agreement with China? If so, when is it likely to happen?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the Department for International Trade made a huge and successful effort last year to roll over many of the trade agreements that we benefited from as an EU member and is negotiating a large number of new agreements at the moment. I note that in its 12 March press release relating to the trade figures the Office for National Statistics noted that there was already a visible potential benefit from our agreement with Singapore and markets in Asia. That shows the benefits we can gain from such agreements in future.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed and it brings Question Time to an end.
Levelling Up
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The levelling-up fund is a UK-wide £4.8 billion fund announced at the spending review, with a view to investing in local infrastructure that has a visible impact on people and their communities. It should drive regeneration in places in need: those facing particular challenges, and areas that have received less government investment in recent years. Some £600 million will be available this year for projects that have the support of their local community, and up to £4.8 billion will be available by May 2024.
All local authorities across Britain can bid for the fund, but they were placed in three categories of need, with the first more likely to get funding, including help to construct their bids. Areas were selected through a deeply flawed methodology that ignores most measures of deprivation, including the Government’s own index of multiple deprivation, which takes into account income, levels of crime and health, and instead favours areas with low productivity and where people have long commutes to work—typical characteristics of rural areas.
Covid-19 has had a catastrophic effect on the finances of local government. The LGA estimates that because of the pandemic up to a further £2.6 billion of support will be needed to cover the cost pressures and non-tax income losses of 2020-21 in full. The Government’s long-term neglect of the UK’s high streets and local businesses, with footfall down 10% since 2012, had left around one in 10 high street shops standing empty even before the coronavirus hit. Councils in England have seen their core funding from central government reduce by £15 billion in the last decade, and 773 libraries, 750 youth centres, 1,300 children’s centres and 835 public toilets in England have closed.
Not a single one of the 200,000 starter homes that the Conservatives promised in 2015 has been built, despite nearly £200 million being spent. The Government have now been forced to concede that they will not keep their promise to deliver nationwide gigabit broadband rollout by 2025, and now look highly likely to miss even their reduced target of 85% coverage. Unlike the Welsh Government’s highly successful 21st-century schools building programme, the UK Government have refurbished less than half of the schools that they had promised by this year; the programme has been delayed by four years and is running £300 million over budget.
A list of local authority areas grouped and prioritised according to economic need has been published, but with no real detail as to how that was calculated. In November the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee published its report into the towns fund, announced by MHCLG in the summer of 2019, and which invited 101 English towns—out of 541 assessed—to apply for money from the fund. The committee found that the process by which towns were selected was “not impartial” and that the department
“has a weak and unconvincing justification for not publishing any information on the process it followed.”
The Government’s treatment of the levelling-up fund is symbolic of their divide-and-rule approach: Richmondshire is in the top level, while Sheffield and Barnsley, both of which have notably higher deprivation levels, are in tier 2. The funding metric must be published. The list as it currently appears is proof that this Government’s actions are levelling areas down, pushing regions and nations and some of the poorest places in the UK to the back of the queue for investment. It appears to be about this Government using the money to level up the Conservative Party’s electoral prospects rather than the economic realities of left-behind communities. I call again on the Government to publish the methodology behind the allocation and then revise how Whitehall makes these spending decisions.
Out of 45 areas allocated money from a pre-existing £3.6 billion towns fund by the Chancellor, 40 have Conservative MPs, and five of them are Cabinet Ministers. Can the Minister explain why the Government’s bizarre formula for determining priority areas appears to use car-journey distance over levels of poverty? The Chancellor has said that the metric was based on an index of economic need that is transparently published, but the fund’s official prospectus says that the information is coming “shortly”. Again I ask: when will this metric be published? Last year the National Audit Office said that the choices in 2019 of which towns could access the towns fund were based on “sweeping assumptions” and may have been politically motivated, as a number were marginal constituencies.
The actual amount of money being distributed by the levelling-up fund is just a drop in the ocean compared with what the Conservatives have taken away from the public realm over the last 10 years. I am afraid it looks weighted towards the interests of the Conservative Party rather than the interests of the British people, who have suffered over a decade of austerity. The past year has shown us how woefully unprepared public services in the UK were to deal with the onslaught of the pandemic. If you keep taking and not putting back, eventually the edifice will crumble. This time last year, when Covid hit us with such force, it found a weakened UK in every corner of its public services.
So what would Labour do in order to bring about fairness in distributing public funding? We support funding for every region and nation, but it is crucial that it is done transparently, fairly and with a say for local communities. This fund fails on all those counts. All regions and nations should get their fair share of investment. This fund pits regions and nations against each other for crucial funding, and hands money to wealthy areas held by Cabinet Ministers ahead of those in greater need. We need to be pushing power down to spread prosperity, but the fund puts control in the hands of Ministers in Whitehall instead of local communities.
This piecemeal funding does not make up for failure over the past decade, which has seen services decimated as £15 billion of cuts have been made to local government. Under the fund our regions will be getting less than they did before the crisis and, unlike before, they will have to fight against each other for every penny of investment. We should have transparent funding metrics in place and leave every part of this country a good place to grow up and grow old in.
The Government’s failure to invest for the past decade has meant that the UK has had the worst crisis of any major economy. The Government now need to secure our jobs, support our high streets and strengthen our communities through investment that truly delivers the aspirations of people in every region. If the Government care about levelling up, why have they not come forward with a plan to fix social care, which in some areas of the country is close to collapse?
Does the Chancellor’s approach to prioritising funding for the levelling-up fund not show that, if you vote Conservative, your money will go to wealthy areas? How can this Government claim to fix regional imbalances when the fund pits regions and nations against each other? What assessment have they made of reports that Cornwall Council will take the Government to court over the decision not to prioritise its area? Does the Minister expect further court cases?
What about the positions in the nations? The fund bypasses the devolution settlement by directly allocating funding for regional and local development in Wales, directly counter to the expressed position of the Senedd and directly contrary to what was announced at the 25 November spending review, when the Chancellor said the £4 billion commitment in England
“will attract up to £0.8 billion”
in funding
“for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the usual way.”
This is the UK Government taking funding that would previously have been allocated to Wales to spend in line with the priorities that the Senedd—elected by the people of Wales—has identified. Decisions are to be made by Whitehall departments with no history of delivering projects in Wales, no record of working with communities in Wales and no understanding of the priorities of those communities. In practice, this means that the UK Government will be taking decisions on devolved matters in Wales without being answerable to the Senedd.
The Governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland now face the prospect of a centralised, Whitehall-led approach instead of a regional and nation-focused approach. The UK Government are going out of their way to take money away from the nations and pick a needless constitutional battle to weaken devolved powers in the middle of a global pandemic. Their fixation with undermining democratic devolution is driving a cynical attempt at rebranding existing spending as new and rolling back progress on a model of national and regional development by democratically elected Governments and councils across the United Kingdom. They are indeed levelling down.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council. I read the Statement on levelling up with great interest. My own area of West Yorkshire includes towns and cities that, by any fair measure, will qualify for focused help to support their residents. I am therefore particularly keen to understand what it is all about.
“Levelling up” is a rather nebulous phrase. I want to understand precisely what it means and, more importantly, what is hoped to be achieved by it. Perhaps the Minister can help, as I have not been able to find anywhere either a definition or an explanation of how improvements will be measured. Can the Minister please provide a definition of levelling up and the metrics that will be used to determine whether the funding allocated has been a success? I appreciate that sharing metrics data orally is not easy, so will the Minister provide that information and make it available to all colleagues through the House of Lords Library?
The tools that the Government are proposing and which are outlined in this Statement are resonant of previous attempts to improve the lives of parts of our country that do not enjoy the same level of well-being as the more affluent one. Previous Governments have used similar funding packages. There was City Challenge, the Single Regeneration Budget and then SRB2. This was followed by investments through the regional development agencies. The common feature was infra-structure investment, although some aspects of SRB had elements of support for jobs and skills. Will the Minister provide the data that demonstrates that the areas that benefited from the funding packages I just listed have prospered as a result—or, better still, data that explains the reasons why some of the same places are still suffering from multiple deprivations? I can name them if the Minister is not sure which places they are. I ask these questions because the Government are in danger of repeating some of the less successful aspects of past attempts at regeneration. They need to explain whether providing shiny new roads and revamped town centres is the way to improve lives and level up.
The Covid pandemic has shone a bright light on the areas of our country that suffer from considerable deprivation. There is a strong link between deaths from Covid and living in deprived parts of our country. Can the Minister explain why some of these areas will not benefit from any of the funding packages outlined in the Statement? Are these places just going to be ignored? What plans do the Government have for providing support for them? Does the Minister agree that reviving local government by enabling local authorities to provide self-help may well be the best way forward? Of course, that depends on adequately funding local government and devolving to councils the right to bring in local knowledge and talent to take responsibility for making the towns that they represent proud places once again. Does the Minister agree?
What we do know is that people who live in areas of multiple deprivation have lives that are literally limited. They die younger; they live in poor-quality housing; their access to healthcare, training and well-paid jobs is limited. Does the Minister, with his wealth of local government experience, agree with this? If he does, can he also explain the reason for these measures not being the main ones used to determine which places will benefit from the funding packages outlined in the Statement?
This brings me to the selection of the places that are due to benefit from those funding packages. Of course, metrics can be carefully selected to ensure that the towns that the Government wish to benefit from additional funding come out top of the pile. That is clearly what has happened in these instances. Using the metric of distance to travel to work will target those places that are of a more rural nature. If that is the aim, the Government should be honest about it and focus on improving public transport in rural areas. If the heart of so-called levelling up is providing focused support to places suffering from multiple deprivations, the Government should use the metrics that enable that to happen. If they do not, they are being hypocritical and make those of us looking on regard what they are doing with some cynicism.
Much of the content of this Statement is of packages that are being announced as new yet again. The miserable levels of funding to mayoral combined authorities of £30 million or so a year in areas that serve, say, 2 million people, is just another example of re-announcing old packages of funding. The support for the well-to-do areas that can raise £250,000 as matched funding to buy and run a community asset has been re-announced. These packages are not new and not aimed at poorer parts of our country.
I want those post-industrial towns that have experienced considerable decline—economically and socially—to benefit from long-term and sustained support that will revive their communities, improve the health and well-being of their residents, enable training and skills that lead to well-paid jobs, and bring hope for the future. Unfortunately, the package of funding announced does none of that. I look forward to answers to my questions when the Minister replies.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the Front-Bench speakers have taken most of the 20 minutes allowable, but I can confirm that the Minister has plenty of time to reply and that the Bank-Benchers will still get their 20 minutes.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I point out that, in order to assess the efficacy of something like the levelling-up fund, we need to recognise the overall policy objective, which is to deal with the long-standing variation in economic performance between different areas and within areas.
The Government have set out their approach to the wider levelling-up agenda through a number of critical documents, such as the National Infrastructure Strategy, which focuses on energy, digital and transport, and the recent spending review, which announced £27 billion for those areas. There is also Build Back Better: Our Plan for Growth, published by Her Majesty’s Treasury, and the capital spending plan, which will be £100 billion— £30 billion more than in 2019-20. So, the overall package of funding around capital and infrastructure projects is at unprecedented levels.
The approach to levelling up needs to be seen as a package of measures. The levelling-up fund is more capital-focused and follows on from the £3.6 billion towns fund, while the community renewal fund—the precursor to the UK shared prosperity fund—is more revenue-focused. Alongside that, we have the increasing devolution of funding, which amounts to around £7.49 billion over 30 years for the nine currently agreed devolution deals.
The approach to the levelling-up fund has focused on making it very clear how we allocate funding. The index and the methodology used to develop it have been published. It focuses on areas that need economic recovery and growth, improved transport connectivity and regeneration. I am absolutely clear that Ministers did not see a list of specific places before agreeing the metrics; no changes to the index’s weightings or metrics were made as a result of Ministers having sight of the list of places.
We are also clear that this needs to be seen as a package of measures and that the levelling-up fund focuses on productivity, unemployment, skills and transport. Richmond scored low on productivity, which is one of the reasons why it is a category 1 area. Newark, which was also mentioned, scored “average to low” on productivity, skills and the unemployment rate. The approach we have taken has yielded those areas that are highest on the index. However, I repeat: all areas, in all categories, can apply to the fund and should be encouraged to do so.
With regard to the devolved Administrations, let me make it absolutely clear that we are seeking advice from them as part of this fund, and they will be consulted at the shortlisting stage. At least £800 million is being set aside for the devolved nations. On regions such as the north and north-west, a significant amount of funding, beyond the levelling-up fund, has been committed to the north to help level up, such as the £319.7 million from the Getting Building Fund. I point out that the UK infrastructure bank will be headquartered in Leeds and will play a key role in the levelling-up agenda.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s commitment to levelling up those parts of the country that, by general consent, have been left behind. I also welcome the very substantial sums of money that the Minister has just referred to. Further to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, when the Minister in another place was asked how we would know whether levelling up was achieving its objectives, he basically said that the next general election would provide the answer. Are the Government working on a measurement, or system of measurements, that would enable us to measure value for money for the levelling-up agenda in the meantime?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I reassure my noble friend that the Government have established a series of provisional priority outcomes and metrics, which has been published as part of the spending review. Table 2H is a particular example of an outcome that will help to measure the success of the fund.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Statement rightly recognises the disparities in wealth and earning opportunities across the country, and it contains some imaginative funding initiatives. What is missing is any quantification of existing disparities and any targets to measure the success of the levelling-up programme. One way of doing this is to state what would constitute success or failure. Does the Minister agree that the initiative will have failed if there is no visible diminution in the need for food banks or in the number of homeless on our streets?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
We can be very clear that the objective of levelling up is to deal with all the issues the noble Lord raises. The metrics are clear: for instance, the performance metric that I mentioned in my previous answer concerns the
“Economic performance of all functional economic areas relative to their trend growth rates”.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, in answer to Clive Betts on Tuesday, the Minister, Eddie Hughes, clearly stated that the way of measuring the success of this programme will be at a general election. Is it the intention to circulate table 2H, as previously mentioned? What is the open, accessible way that the electorate will be enabled to judge whether this programme is a success—or, indeed, not a success, as some of us suspect may well be the case?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my previous answer: there is a series of provisional outcomes and metrics. I just pointed to table 2H as an example of one that affects my department. Those metrics are then captured by departments in their outcome delivery plans.
Baroness Pidding (Con) [V]
My Lords, at the last election, people voted Conservative, some for the first time, because they believed in levelling up and our vision of spreading prosperity to areas neglected by Labour. Does my noble friend agree that, by ensuring that every part of the country can bid for, and benefit from, the levelling-up fund, we are accelerating our transformational levelling-up agenda?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My noble friend is right that the levelling-up fund will operate right across the United Kingdom. It will invest in infrastructure and improve everyday life across the United Kingdom by regenerating town centres and high streets, upgrading local transport and investing in cultural and heritage assets.
Lord Bird (CB)
We know that a commonality among people who suffer poverty is, on most occasions, that they did not do very well at school. This leads to a low-wage economy, low-wage health and low social mobility and opportunity. We are talking about poverty —it is the only reason you would talk about levelling up. If are going to level up and to address poverty, then is this not the chance we have to take to excel with our schools and to put an enormous amount of investment into our children and the children of the next generation?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I completely agree that education is very much the engine of social mobility and addresses the points that were raised. We need to judge our levelling-up agenda against a package of measures that could also support skills development through things such as the new community renewal fund and the UK shared prosperity fund.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether the levelling-up fund will accept bids containing social infrastructure elements such as funding to transform family support into a family hubs model? Transformation typically requires revenue funding to redeploy senior staff and backfill their roles, the development of missing services et cetera, as well as capital funding to refurbish buildings. Is this fund open to both capital and revenue funding bids?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, local government does tend to separate capital and revenue, and the UK levelling-up fund will have more of a capital focus. However, this could include community spaces important to local areas that support the family policies that my noble friend has raised.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that England is the most centralised democratic country, and that the greater the centralisation that a country has, the greater the regional inequality. Here we have competitive funding decided by Ministers in London as the answer to devolution. Can the Minister tell us what he understands by the word “devolution”? Can you have devolution without transferring real power and long-term finance to local and regional governments?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I fear that this is a mixing up of issues. We need to see that the levelling-up agenda is around the duty of a national Government helping to level up all areas of the United Kingdom, while devolution of funding is also occurring, as I have already mentioned.
Lord Haselhurst (Con) [V]
My Lords, while I warmly support the Government’s levelling-up plans, would my noble friend acknowledge that, regardless of their geographical location, perceived prosperity or supposed political affinity, too many parts of the country are still unreached by digital connectivity and superfast broadband? They would appreciate their own bit of levelling up in this increasingly important respect.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the need to deal with the wider issues around the levelling-up agenda. I have pointed to the national infrastructure strategy, which is putting some £27 billion towards issues such as the zero-carbon agenda, transport infrastructure and, importantly, digital connectivity and infrastructure.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
My Lords, Cornwall is in complete shock. Until last year, we were regarded as one of the poorest places in the whole country, with incomes 25% below the national average and 17 areas in the bottom 10% of the index of multiple deprivation. Miraculously, in the new index, we appear to be as rich as Bath, which is in the top 25% in the UK. Can the Minister explain how this algorithm can possibly be correct, or is this not actually, quite clearly, an error as poor as the algorithms used for last year’s exams?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I have attempted to explain several times that, as opposed to the index of multiple deprivation, the metrics of the levelling-up fund focus on productivity, unemployment, skills and transport. Its approach is to improve, in particular, transport infrastructure and other capital projects, as opposed to general deprivation levels.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House supports the Government’s agenda in what it is seeking to do with levelling up. I confess that I am always slightly nervous of the habit of successive Governments of judging success by financial input. My noble friend has already mentioned that there will be an ongoing assessment of these projects. Can he reassure me that, should that ongoing assessment demonstrate that the projects are not delivering a return for the taxpayer, they will be stopped and the money reallocated?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I can give that assurance that, as we go through the rounds, we will make assessments and judge on outcomes. That is why it is terribly important to have an outcomes framework, as has been published, and that we continue to see progress against those metrics identified in that framework.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the levelling-up fund was a bit West Midlands-light, but there is still time for this to be remedied. When the Minister looks at success and repeats that the framework is about productivity, skills, transport and unemployment, I urge him to pay particular attention to the 50% of young people who do not go to university. If we do not deliver for them, whatever other levelling up we are doing, we will have failed.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I point out that this fund is available to all authorities, including those in the West Midlands. Those not in category 1 should apply. All bids will be judged on their deliverability, strategic fit and value for money. I am sure that there will be opportunities for the West Midlands Combined Authority to be one of those who will be a beneficiary of the fund.
Lord Oates (LD) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while we are levelling up, we also have an important opportunity to advance the UK’s green objectives? In that context, will the Government ensure that the bid criteria are designed to encourage bids that would help increase biodiversity and tackle climate change?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I have been clear that the focus of this fund is to prioritise those areas where there is a need for economic recovery, transport connectivity and regeneration. I am sure that this will be done in the most environmentally friendly way possible.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Statement and the Government’s levelling-up agenda. Levelling up is about ensuring that we strip away the barriers stopping people and places from achieving their full potential. As evidenced in numerous reports—some commissioned by the Government—race has, sadly, been a de-leveller for many in our country. Does racial equality inform the Government’s levelling-up agenda and, if so, how?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, in order for there to be a reduction in economic disparity, of course that needs to touch on the issues that my noble friend raises. The proof of the pudding will be that we see those left-behind areas with large minority communities level up with those areas that are economically more successful.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, as chairman of the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership, I welcome these levelling-up initiatives. As the Minister has pointed out, levelling up is not simply a northern or an urban challenge. As has been pointed out, the headings of expenditure described in the Statement are a mere drop in the ocean of what is needed nationally, but they are a start. Can the Minister tell the House how, and in what specific ways, public expenditure and policy will be recalibrated to take this levelling-up agenda forward, at the same time ensuring that this is not done at the expense of global competitiveness?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I do not see the levelling-up agenda as being anything other than helping us to be more economically competitive at a global level. I am sure that there will be opportunities to refine the outcomes frameworks and the metrics used to ensure that we are successful in our desire to raise all boats.
Lord Scriven (LD) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister explain why the time to travel to work in a car, such as a Bentley or a BMW, is a weighted factor worth nearly 20% of all weighting to steer funding for levelling up economic recovery, growth and regeneration of an area?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that it is entirely fair to categorise an area with poor transport infrastructure by reference to the speed and distance travelled in a Bentley. The focus of this fund is to deal with the challenges that we have around the need for greater connectivity, and it is those projects that will be funded.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the superb structuring of this fund: the insistence on collaboration; the way in which councils and MPs are involved; and, in particular, the seeking of support from civil society in all its forms. In the context of Eastbourne, this has produced a ferment of ideas and enthusiasm which will do us a great deal of good going into the future. But as a seaside town whose income has been wiped out by Covid and which is staying solvent only by the grace of my noble friend’s department, how are we allowed to fund our 10% share of the bid that is asked for? If we bid now for phase 1 of our regeneration, can we include 5% or so of our bid to finance the feasibility study for phase 2? For that, we ought to have widespread public consultation and consideration of alternatives to give our larger plans a firm base, but in our current financial state we do not have the revenue out of which to take that funding.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I know that my noble friend will be delighted that Eastbourne is within category 1 in terms of being prioritised within the index of places. That means that Eastbourne and its council can draw on support, where there is an absence of capacity or perhaps not enough funding available, of up to £125,000 for the preparation of the bid. I point out that councils are merely encouraged to put some of their own resources towards the bid funding; it is not necessarily a prerequisite. In the case of Eastbourne, the Government are providing that funding to make sure that there is the best possible opportunity for the council to be successful in its bid for the fund.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and answered. Congratulations to the Minister and congratulations to the Back-Benchers.
Public Health (Coronavirus) (Protection from Eviction) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
That the Regulations laid before the House on 19 February be approved.
Relevant document: 47th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, the instrument before us prevents enforcement agents—bailiffs—attending residential premises in England to execute a writ or warrant of possession, except in the most serious circumstances. The House will be familiar with the structure and content of the instrument. Although I will deal with the content of the instrument in due course, I want to begin with its duration, because that matter was raised by several noble Lords in the debate we had on 2 February about this SI’s predecessor.
This instrument applies to enforcement action in England and will be in force until 31 March this year. It extends restrictions on the enforcement of evictions that have been in place since mid-November. The current SI expires on 22 February. On 2 February, when we debated the previous statutory instrument, a number of noble Lords raised concerns that the ban was not in place for long enough and that both landlords and tenants would benefit from greater clarity about how long the restrictions would be in force. We have had to balance that need for clarity against an ongoing and changing pandemic, but we have listened to the views expressed by noble Lords. On 10 March, the Government announced that we intend to extend these protections until 31 May, and we will lay legislation to do so shortly. So although the formal position is that this SI takes us up to 31 March, the legislation we will bring forward, as we have already announced, will give people clarity and assurance until 31 May.
That 31 May date is broadly in line with the roadmap out of lockdown. Noble Lords will need no reminding from me that step 3 of the roadmap will be taken no earlier than 17 May, following a review of the data as it appears at the time. Step 3 sees a number of restrictions lifted, including the ban on domestic overnight stays, which is relevant in this context. Noble Lords might ask why the proposed date is 31 May and not linked to step 4, which is scheduled for no earlier than 21 June. The short answer is that we have to remember, when looking at 31 May, that in most cases, bailiffs are now required to give 14 days’ notice of an eviction. In practice, protection from enforcement of evictions will be afforded, in most cases, until mid-June. We believe that that strikes the right balance in the circumstances.
The substantive provisions of the instrument are the same as in the one we debated on 2 February, apart from the duration, which I have already addressed. As I set out on 2 February, the Government have put in place unprecedented financial support to protect renters directly through measures such as these regulations and increasing the local housing allowance rate to the 30th percentile of local market rates in each area. We have made £180 million available to local authorities in discretionary housing payments. Of course, there is also the furlough scheme, support for the self-employed and bounceback loans.
While I will not go through the detail of that again, let me highlight two provisions in the Budget that are relevant in this context. First, as noble Lords will be aware, the furlough scheme was extended until the end of September. Secondly, the support for the self-employed was extended in scope—600,000 people who were not previously entitled are now entitled—and duration, to the end of September. We continue to provide limited exemptions from the ban on enforcement. They are, as previously set out, broadly as follows: where the claim is against trespassers who are persons unknown; where the order for possession was made wholly or partly on the grounds of antisocial behaviour, nuisance, false statements, domestic abuse in social tenancies or substantial rent arrears equivalent to six months’ rent; and where the order for possession was made wholly or partly on the grounds of the death of the tenant, and the enforcement agent is satisfied that the property is unoccupied. Those exemptions are applied by the court on a case-by-case basis.
The critical point is that given that broad sweep of financial support, we consider it unlikely that a full six months of arrears would have accumulated solely because of the effects of Covid-19. Rather, where that exemption applies, it will likely involve significant levels of rent arrears that predate the pandemic, where landlords may now have been waiting for over a year without rent being paid.
In addition, where the court applies an exemption, bailiffs have to give tenants at least 14 days’ notice of an eviction in most circumstances and have been asked not to enforce evictions where a tenant has symptoms of Covid-19 or is self-isolating. In addition, we have introduced a requirement in the Coronavirus Act that landlords in all but the most serious circumstances must provide tenants with six months’ notice before beginning formal possession proceedings in court.
Previously, in Section 21 cases, two months’ notice was needed, and other grounds required as little as two weeks’ notice. The requirement for longer notice was to apply until 31 March, but the Housing Minister laid an SI last week to extend that period also to 31 May. Extending the notice period obviously gives additional protection to tenants. Taking this in the round, that requirement to provide six months’ notice in the majority of cases means that most renters now served notice by a landlord can stay in their homes until September 2021. Our statistics show that the number of possession cases has fallen significantly. In the last quarter of 2020, they were down 67% compared to the same quarter the previous year.
In the limited time I have, I want to take a moment to express my gratitude to the Civil Procedure Rule Committee for addressing the challenges the coronavirus pandemic has caused the justice system and for the considerable work done at some pace by both that committee and the working party under the chairmanship of Sir Robin Knowles. Since I mentioned the judiciary, I extend my respectful welcome to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, a former chancellor of the High Court and, more recently, Master of the Rolls. Like all noble Lords, I look forward to his maiden speech later in this debate.
So far as the courts are concerned, temporary arrangements remain in place to ensure appropriate support. We have introduced new review stages and a requirement that cases have to be reactivated, and we are piloting a new, free mediation service until August this year. We are conscious that we also have to think about landlords. We consider that the best way to protect landlords is to provide the financial help we have been providing to help renters pay their rent. We are grateful to landlords for their forbearance during this unprecedented time, and we encourage all renters not only to pay their rent but to have an early conversation with their landlord if they are in difficulties.
This instrument provides tenants with protection from eviction up to 31 March. We have announced that we will bring forward legislation to extend that to 31 May. We are trying to strike an appropriate balance during an unprecedented public health crisis to avoid placing additional burdens on the NHS and local authorities. For those reasons, I commend these regulations to the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I should have added that there is time in this debate for the maiden speaker to have a whole extra minute and the welcomer a whole extra 90 seconds if they wish to be so indulgent.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, Nye Bevan’s home village, for his cogent, clear summary of this extension of the ban on bailiff-enforced evictions in England during the Covid-19 pandemic. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton.
The regulations are welcome, but I am afraid that other Covid-19 regulations have morphed to create police state-type restrictions on legitimate, peaceful protests. The police’s dreadful handling of Saturday night’s Sarah Everard Clapham Common vigil was because of the Government’s coronavirus regulations, argued Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball. Of course, social distancing must be maintained, including in public protests, though it is worth noting that last year’s Black Lives Matter protests in some 300 US cities did not cause a spike in cases, according to the US’s National Bureau of Economic Research, partly because the outdoor air helped dispel any threat of the virus.
Protest is the lifeblood of a healthy democracy. Everyone should have the right to stand up to those in power and make their voices heard. Coronavirus-safe, socially distanced, peaceful demonstrations, with participants wearing masks, are perfectly feasible, and the police should have a duty to facilitate, not to block, them. It is a real indictment of the Government’s harsh curbs on protest in other regulations that the organisers of the Sarah Everard vigil last Saturday, who engaged openly in negotiations with the police, were unable to proceed with the peaceful, socially distanced vigil they intended. Tragically, coronavirus has precipitated a fundamental erosion of the right to protest in Britain, and I hope the Minister will respond to that point.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too very much look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, this afternoon.
A further extension to the ban on bailiff enforcement is right, given the long duration of the pandemic, but the previous debate on private rented sector evictions was only a few weeks ago, which makes me ask why the Government keep coming back with short extensions. It would be better to draw up a policy now for addressing the underlying crisis, which is not going to go away, which is the huge level of debt of many tenants who will continue to be dependent on the private rented sector. At its heart, this is an issue of low incomes and job insecurity caused by the pandemic. So, are the Government going to keep their promise, made by the Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick, a year ago, that
“no renter who has lost income due to coronavirus will be forced out of their home”?
Why are tenants with more than six months’ rent arrears not covered by the ban on eviction, when the pandemic has now lasted for just over a year? The Government should increase the budget for discretionary housing payments and local housing allowance and reassess the housing benefit cap. There is then a need for a Covid rent debt fund—a level of £300 million has been suggested—to compensate landlords, as proposed by both the National Residential Landlords Association and Generation Rent. The problem is that without this policy change, debt levels will continue to rise. The Government should look at the subsidies they give for owner occupation and compare those to the subsidies they give to the rented sectors. There is an imbalance which the Government will have to address.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who always has something of value to say—indeed, I agree with much of what he said today. I thank my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar for setting out these regulations. I declare my interests as set out in the register. Like other noble Lords, I look forward very much to the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, a fellow member of Gray’s Inn.
These regulations are familiar; they repeat earlier, similar restrictions. I predicted last time that we would be here again—no great insight, I admit. It is clear that we will be here again. I asked last time why we could not look at this on a longer timeframe; the problem will not disappear. Of course, I do not oppose the regulations, but the Explanatory Memorandum states, somewhat misleadingly:
“This is a temporary measure lasting less than 12 months”.
Well, yes and no, Minister. It keeps being renewed in very similar terms and, as I say, I am sure we will be here again. When will the Government look at a medium to long-term solution for tenants who cannot pay and landlords who are not being paid? We are kicking the can down the road; the debt remains. These regulations do not stop the debt accruing. The tenant still owes the money; the landlord has still not been paid. The tenant is developing a poor credit rating and their ability to re-enter the housing market will be shot. As I say, I do not oppose the regulations, but they do not provide a long-term solution. The Government need to consider something along the lines of tenant hardship loans or grants. Sooner or later, this problem will need dealing with. I suggest that it should be sooner.
Lord Etherton (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour to make my maiden speech in this debate and I thank the Minister and other noble Lords for their warm welcome today. That I am in position to make my maiden speech today is due to the support and kindness of many people. Time constraints mean that I can mention only a few by name. I thank, in particular, my supporters, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett; the Lord Convenor and his private secretary, Kate Long, and executive assistant, Daisy Christy; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and Donna Davidson. My thanks go also to the Clerk of the Parliaments, Black Rod and all the staff who have been so helpful to me.
I do not wish to comment directly on the merits of the statutory instrument, as that might be considered to be raising a controversial issue, but as Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice until the beginning of this year, I would like briefly to remind the House of what the judges were doing in relation to residential possession proceedings from the first lockdown in March last year. In that month, I issued a direction requiring a stay of possession proceedings for 90 days. The object was initially to consider how possession actions could proceed appropriately in the pandemic and the lockdown. There were extensions of the stay until September 2020, the final one to enable the courts to consider, once the stay ended, how best to determine the anticipated thousands of residential possession actions that had to be heard. I asked Mr Justice Knowles to chair a unique cross-sector working group to advise on new court procedures in light of the extraordinary conditions. It advised me on a new procedural framework which would, in particular, support vulnerable tenants in the litigation process and encourage compromise and restraint on the part of social landlords, in particular.
Following the ending of the procedural stay, the Government in November 2020 secured the implementation of the first of their three successive statutory instruments restricting the carrying out of evictions by bailiffs. I pay tribute to those judges, overwhelmingly district judges and deputy district judges in the county courts, effectively the civil justice front line, and the members of Sir Robin Knowles’s working group, who have worked and continue to work so hard in seeking to make residential possession proceedings as appropriate as possible in the present, difficult circumstances.
Lord Best (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and congratulate him on an important maiden speech. As Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice, he has been no stranger to controversy, and I suspect has many admirers among your Lordships for the line he has taken on several high-profile issues. In December, the Lord Chief Justice’s valedictory speech for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, noted that he had been a great champion of access to justice and of support for vulnerable people in the civil courts, not least during the months of the pandemic. We have heard his wise comments from that perspective today. In recounting the noble and learned Lord’s treatment at the hands of the Daily Mail following the two famous Miller judgments, the Lord Chief Justice quoted JK Rowling’s comment on that “Enemies of the People” article:
“If the worst they can say about you is you’re an openly gay excellent Olympic fencer top judge, you’ve basically won at life.”
We are indeed fortunate to have such a distinguished addition to your Lordships’ House and hugely look forward to further contributions from the noble and learned Lord.
I declare my housing interests as on the register, and I want to address the underlying cause of the problems which these regulations seek to mitigate. The arrears and eviction situation resulting from the pandemic has shown up the fundamental fragility of the private rented sector. The PRS has doubled in size in less than 20 years to around 20% of our homes, with over 2 million landlords. Now many landlords, as well as tenants, are facing difficulties coping with the consequences of Covid-19. Meanwhile, the social housing sector—housing association and council housing—has halved in size, from some 32% to 17% of the nation’s homes, yet the pandemic has underlined the need for this sector to provide far more decent, secure and affordable housing.
Does the Minister now see merit in last year’s proposal from the Affordable Housing Commission—I declare my interest as its chair—for a national housing conversion fund, which would enable private landlords wishing to exit the market to sell to social housing landlords who are equipped to withstand financial difficulties and provide permanent homes that are affordable to those on modest incomes?
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Best, and to echo his tributes to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for a very modest but model maiden speech. He even did it within the extended time limit. He will bring lustre to our Benches, as well as experience and expertise, and he is most welcome.
I also congratulate my noble friend the Minister for the clarity and precision with which he introduced this order. It was admirable and exemplary. I am sure he will understand, however, that I share a certain dissatisfaction with the way in which Parliament has been consistently marginalised when we have had to deal with coronavirus regulations. I fully understand the terrible problems under which the Government have had to operate, but Parliament must not be marginalised, and we have to do something about retrospective legislation. This order, introduced and laid a month ago and debated today, was due to expire in a fortnight—although I was glad to hear of the extension to 31 May.
I have a brief suggestion to make to your Lordships’ House. I know that we cannot vote in Grand Committee. It is important that we have the facility to vote on these orders—even though I would never vote against this one or, indeed, most of the others—but I suggest that it would be a good idea, in the new Session of Parliament at the latest, to have a special Grand Committee for coronavirus regulations which can vote. Therefore, the regulations could be dealt with more expeditiously, and we would not have so much retrospective legislation which, I am sure, cannot commend itself to our new colleague, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. While I welcome this short extension, it is only kicking the can down the road. As we have heard, private renters have been hit particularly hard by the pandemic. Research has found that twice as many private renters—who often have little or no savings—have suffered job losses compared with homeowners since coronavirus restrictions began.
As a Londoner, I note with real concern that one in seven London renters are in arrears, and women are twice as likely as men to have lost their job in the first lockdown. I am greatly concerned that women will be hardest hit by the end to the eviction ban. Before the pandemic, average rents took up 43% of women’s median earnings, compared with 28% of men’s, which reveals an invidious gender divide.
Simply suspending repossessions does nothing to address the underlying rent debt problem in the sector. It is vital that the Government develop an urgent financial package to help all those renters affected to pay off arrears, otherwise many tenants will have debts that are unsustainable, as we have heard. If they cannot pay them off, they will have to move home and face significant damage to their credit score, making it more difficult for them to access housing in the future.
The cost of rent debt is estimated to be around the £300 million mark, which is frankly relatively modest compared with the £1.6 billion that has been wiped off stamp duty for homeowners. Up to £3.8 million of funding was announced in the Budget to pilot no-interest loan schemes to help vulnerable consumers who will benefit from affordable short-term credit to meet unexpected costs, something I very much support. While we are still waiting to hear the details of this scheme, surely it would be possible for a scaled-up version of it to form the basis of a model for renters.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
My Lords, evictions should be viewed as a last resort, only after all other avenues have been exhausted, and even more so at this time when the global pandemic is having a serious adverse impact on household incomes and employment.
Affording sufficient breathing space to tenants who have found themselves in financial difficulties through no fault of their own during Covid-19 is, therefore, a constructive and compassionate gesture. This reflects separate measures taken across the UK to suspend insolvency proceedings and protect commercial tenants from eviction where their circumstances have been directly influenced by Covid-19.
It is appropriate that we encourage landlords not to issue any new notices to evict or quit at this time unless absolutely unavoidable. Collectively, landlords, tenants, local authorities and departments should be able to examine what steps can be taken, short of eviction, where a tenant is in arrears due to financial difficulties arising from Covid-19. Having that early, joined-up conversation can help to prevent situations escalating and chart a better way forward.
However, it is absolutely right for us to recognise that continuing enforcement of eviction or repossession will be entirely justified in some cases. This includes cases of anti-social behaviour and domestic abuse or where rent arrears are at such an advanced stage to pose a disproportionate burden on a landlord. The Government are right to highlight the need for practical discretions in these situations.
The pandemic will ultimately have a negative and long-lasting impact on jobs and prosperity right across the province, and therefore I believe that these regulations are appropriate.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome and support this regulation, laid before the House on 19 February, which further extends the eviction ban during the Covid-19 restrictions. I do so, however, with some trepidation about the long-term implications of this crisis for renters and landlords in this country.
Figures from Generation Rent show that one in three private renters have lost income because of the Covid-19 pandemic, and half a million of these people are currently behind on rental payments. We know that increasing numbers of young people are in private rental accommodation, but so, too, are many older people—there are more than 750,000 private renters over 60 years of age in the UK. The extension of the current eviction ban through this regulation does not apply to tenants who are six months or more in arrears. We know that many of these people will be in dire financial situations or at a very high risk of becoming homeless.
At the start of the pandemic, the Government managed to house all the homeless people in London in temporary accommodation, meaning that, for the first time in decades, there was a significant reduction in the number of rough sleepers in the city. But more recently, the number of people sleeping on the city streets has increased again. Given the number of empty office buildings in the city—many of which may remain empty even after restrictions lift due to increased levels of remote working—we now need to look at how buildings can be repurposed to house the homeless. Also, how can we support businesses to facilitate this change where appropriate?
This is not an easy issue and the Government have done the right thing in stopping evictions at this time —but other measures are going to be needed to ensure that there is no explosion of rough sleeping and homelessness, once this eviction ban ends.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, on a quality maiden speech, which has whetted our appetites for his future contributions.
It is a disgrace that the Government have consistently failed to give Parliament time to debate regulations such as these before they come into effect; it is a disgrace that Parliament has acquiesced in this; and it is a disgrace that both the Government and Parliament have agreed on measures to curtail freedoms way beyond those needed to tackle the pandemic and for which there is no scientific evidence. The ban on outlawed demonstrations, for example, lacks any evidential justification. Not one of the Black Lives Matter demonstrations throughout the world resulted in a detectable spread of infections. We saw at the weekend how such ill-thought-out legislation put the police in an intolerable dilemma.
The measures in these regulations are desirable and necessary, but the justification for stopping evictions is economic and social, not medical. It is to prevent the evictions of people who are unable to pay their rent because they have been prevented from working. Yet the legislation pretends that it is necessary to stop evictions simply to avoid the spread of the virus. That is palpable nonsense. Because of lockdown, we would have wanted to prevent evictions even if we had absolute certainty that they would not result in the spread of infections—just to prevent hardship.
I take it that the assertion by the Minister in the preamble to the legislation that it is necessary purely for medical reasons is to justify bringing this measure under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. This provides further evidence that we should be operating under the Civil Contingencies Act, not under the control of disease Act. If we were, Parliament would have had far greater control of these matters and the measures would have been carried out on a cross-United Kingdom basis.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, these debates are interesting because I find myself agreeing so much with Members with whom I often do not agree, including the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. I agree with everything that he has just said. I also agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, regarding bans on protests. That does not relate to this particular statutory instrument but nevertheless needs to be stated. I also agree with the comments of my noble friends Lord Shipley and Lady Tyler, who said many of the things that I might have said.
My noble friend Lady Tyler said that this is kicking the can down the road. A better metaphor would be that it is shunting the issue further along the track—and the track is actually a siding, so sooner or later it will hit the buffers. When that happens, there will be a major problem.
The debt advice organisation StepChange says 150,000 private sector tenants are at risk of being evicted within 12 months. Then, of course, there are all the children, dependants and other members of those families. Do the Government have a figure on the number of people they think are seriously at risk of eviction when this particular truck finally hits the buffers and the Government stop shunting it down the track because there is no track left?
The Minister referred to the road map out of lockdown, but the question for so many of those people is: what is the road map out of debt? Many of them cannot see one at all.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. His metaphor is tragically apt.
I join others in welcoming the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, to the House. Given the Government’s now regular practice of playing fast and loose with the law and destroying long-cherished freedoms, we certainly need the legal reinforcement.
We debate the details of this SI while facing an epidemic of homelessness. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has already detailed how the Government are breaking their promise of ensuring that no-one becomes homeless as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. However, I want to look forward. The Minister referred to the support that the Government have supplied through furlough schemes and to the self- employed. However, millions have missed out on the latter and the former will come to an end, leaving many facing a deeply uncertain future, even while 80% of their salary has not been enough to keep many afloat.
A survey two months ago by the National Residential Landlords Association warned of a “rent debt crisis”. Among renters, those aged between 18 and 24 are particularly likely to be in trouble, as are a significant number of the self-employed—unsurprisingly, given the gaping holes in the Government’s support for that group. So I have a simple question for the Minister. Can he confirm that the Government are at least considering a fund to deliver grants to those who cannot, and will in no way be able to, pay rent arrears?
We have a huge problem with our housing sector, as noble Lord, Lord Best, outlined. Individual tenants are victims of a system that has treated houses primarily as financial assets, and which has privatised public assets at huge cost to the common good through right to buy. This is a problem caused by policies of successive Governments over decades. It requires government action to assist the victims and, in the longer term, a major shift in policy to stop treating homes as assets to be sweated for maximum profit.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I also congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, on his thoughtful maiden speech.
Every coin has two sides but, in respect of this measure, one side has been ignored and the other not properly thought through. Clearly, private renters have been hard hit, but this measure ignores the likely build-up of arrears by renters, giving rise to eventual court cases and repossessions. This will result in serious damage to their credit score and ability to access housing. It also does not consider the position of those renters who can afford to pay but hide behind these measures and decide not to pay their landlords.
The National Residential Landlords Association, representing landlords who account for 20% of UK households, reports that 60% of its members have lost rental income. We are talking about a sector in which 94% of the properties are owned by individuals who, in the main, own only one property and regard it as their pension. This is not about the Cadogan or Grosvenor estates, and these landlords continue to have financial obligations regarding their properties. This is not healthy for either side, but to regard landlords as bankers to their tenants is totally inappropriate.
One solution to avoid that situation is for the Government to provide tenant hardship loans along the lines of the schemes in Scotland and Wales, supported by a range of bodies such as the charity StepChange, Citizens Advice and the Resolution Foundation. Loans would be interest free, government guaranteed and paid directly to the landlord, with repayment due as the affected tenant recovers. It would enable the orderly recovery of the renter and would protect his credit rating. The landlord would be able to continue to invest in his property and the courts would be free from a deluge of cases leading to hardship for all concerned.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I join in the congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. The more decent lawyers we have in this place to call the Government to account, the better.
The Explanatory Memorandum to this SI beggars belief. It states:
“The purpose of this instrument is to protect public health and reduce the public health risks posed by”,
Covid-19. This is a complete and utter nonsense. Perhaps I may mention that the point made by my noble friend Lord Cormack is very sound. We need a proper committee to look at these SIs before they come into force, not when they are almost at the date of expiry.
Most of all, we need to get back to normal. The way in which this House has functioned in the past year has, frankly, been sub-optimal—to put it mildly.
We are now asked to endorse this measure. It provides for limited occasions when people can go to court to get possession. However, what it does not say is that the whole court system is in chaos and meltdown, and it is almost impossible to get a date in a court. Can the Minister tell us what is being done to free up the courts for landlords?
There is a small amount in the budget—£3.8 million—and, we reckon, something like a hundred times that much is needed. How will that gap be covered? Finally, is this system being played by people who just do not want to pay their rent? Have the Government made any estimates, and if so, what are they?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, on his maiden speech, and I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations.
I believe that the Government should strengthen and extend the ban on evictions and repossessions until the restrictions are over; extend the mortgage holiday; raise the local housing allowance to cover median market rents; reform housing law to end automatic evictions through the courts; reduce the waiting period for mortgage interest payments support; make the £20 uplift to universal credit permanent and end the five-week wait; and suspend the benefits cap. That would help enormously the many people who are trying to exist in very difficult circumstances and facing eviction.
There is also a need to address the rent debt problem in the social housing sector, particularly for private renters. What steps will the Minister and his colleagues take to develop an urgent financial package to help all those affected renters pay off arrears built up since the pandemic began? We have to be able to assist people and not encourage the perpetuation of debt, which is detrimental to them later. If this does not happen there is a concern that many tenants will have debts that are unsustainable for themselves, their families and their children—and for the landlords.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is so good to see my university friend the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, at the Dispatch Box. I also congratulate my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton.
When these regulations were debated before, in February, it was the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, I think, who pointed out that Citizens Advice had estimated that close to 500,000 renters were in arrears and at risk of Covid-19-related eviction. Already, more than 174,000 private tenants have been threatened with eviction by their landlords or letting agents. Even at the start of the pandemic, a year ago, two-thirds of private tenants had no savings, and 45% of private renters have lost income since March.
The Government are right to say that nobody will lose their home because of coronavirus. We understand that the majority of residential evictions are on hold until 31 May. It is right to continue supporting renters with the cost of living and to align ourselves with the timelines of the Prime Minister’s road map, particularly as tenants may continue to be on furlough, or working in sectors that cannot reopen, for some weeks yet. With around 49% of hospitality workers and 36% of retail workers currently renting, the new measures will protect jobs as businesses reopen and many more renters can return to work. The hospitality industry has been decimated over the past year.
Landlords may be asking how, in some cases, the growing rental debt will be managed after the protection ends. The issue cannot be addressed if the parties fall out with each other the moment the protection ends. Does the Minister agree that the Government should seek to avoid a cliff-edge in June for residents and landlords, and, where possible, help them to work together to secure fair tenancy agreements as we move forward? That should be the priority.
Does the Minister also agree that the Government have promised mediation support for resolving disputes, and that that must be available to all who need it? We could reduce a heavy caseload for mediation if the Government published guidance for tenants and landlords. It would help negotiations to be conducted fairly and transparently and in good time, ahead of the end of May deadline.
As President of the CBI I know that the Government have provided huge support—£400 billion over the past year—and that in the Budget two weeks ago the Chancellor rightly extended that support into the summer, with measures that included extending the furlough, business rates relief and a reduction in VAT to 5%. This will give businesses the chance to bounce back and emerge from the pandemic. It will save jobs and businesses.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar for introducing this SI so clearly. I also express my appreciation for the Government’s efforts to strike the difficult but important balance between the essential need to protect tenants during this pandemic, when many may have lost jobs and businesses, and enabling property-owners to exercise their rights to the properties that they own. An individual has a legitimate expectation of being able to protect their rights and income, with many pensioners, for example, having relied on a property, such as a buy-to-let, to support their retirement. I declare my interests as set out in the register.
I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, on his masterful maiden speech. I am also pleased to welcome exemptions to this ban for squatters, anti-social or abusive tenants, and those with severe rent arrears. Will the Minister, however, consider another exemption: one for the rising number of landlords who need to move into their own home, which they had rented out before 2019? They may have lost an overseas job, or need to move near to loved ones, and are unable to move into their house or apartment.
It is, of course, important to help tenants pay their rent, and tenants need to feel secure during their tenancies. The help available, however, is perhaps in need of improvement, given that these measures are going on for much longer than had previously been expected. The National Residential Landlords Association and Generation Rent are calling for more support. Landlords have worked hard to help tenants wherever possible. Can my noble friend comment on the mediation pilot that is in progress for possession cases, which seeks to achieve compromise rather than court proceedings? That could be a very welcome step, given the situation in the courts.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this SI has been prepared by the Ministry of Justice with the purpose of protecting public health in England and reducing the risks posed by the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome that causes Covid-19. This instrument prevents the enforcement of evictions, including the serving of notices of eviction, against residential tenants, other than in the most serious circumstances, until 31 March 2021.
By restricting the enforcement of evictions at a time when pressure on public services is acute and the risk of virus transmission is very high, this measure will help control the spread of infection, prevent any additional burden falling on the NHS and avoid overburdening local authorities in their work of providing housing support and protecting public health.
This instrument was made on 17 February 2021 and came into force on 22 February, at the same time as the previous regulations expired. Having been made under the emergency procedure, it will automatically cease to have effect at the end of 28 days, beginning with the day on which it was made, unless during that period it is renewed by a resolution of each House of Parliament. It applies only to England. It is a temporary measure that lasts less than 12 months, and because it is a part of the Government’s coronavirus emergency response, requirements for a formal regulatory impact assessment do not apply.
I believe that this is a good and proper instrument and will protect not only tenants and local authorities but also the NHS.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I thank him for his maiden speech and congratulate him on his work in his former role on easing repossessions, which helped to ease a difficult situation. I also welcome my noble friend to the Dispatch Box yet again. I look forward to his robust defence of the statutory instrument, the main thrust of which I support.
In the catalogue of support that my noble friend outlined, I do not think that there is any cover for directors who have been caught in the trap of taking a low salary and relying on dividends. I do not know whether there is any evidence that they will be caught by the thrust of this statutory instrument; I would be interested to hear whether there is any support in the pipeline for them. Like my noble friend Lady Altmann, I am quite excited about the new free mediation service that is being piloted; it is very welcome. What does my noble friend the Minister expect to happen at the end of the pilot? Does his department plan to roll that out more widely from August? What will the legal situation be after 31 March? If this order is extended until 31 March but the Minister is not expecting to bring forward the replacement until the middle of May, will there be a legal vacuum? Can he clarify what the situation is in those circumstances?
I join noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Bourne, in raising the issue that has been brought to the Floor by Generation Rent. We do not appear, as a Government, to be tackling the underlying problem of rent debt. Does my noble friend the Minister have a long-term solution? Finally, does he share my concern about the non-payment of council tax? Will this jeopardise the future payment of rent arrears as well?
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I welcome and congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton.
I echo the wise words and advocacy of the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Lilley. I send my heartfelt respect to the family of Sarah Everard. I agree and am in solidarity with all those families whose children have been lost, and the peaceful protestors. It was an appalling application of lockdown policies and strategies.
The CAB helps someone every two minutes regarding privately rented housing, and half a million renters are in arrears and facing eviction. While I acknowledge the Government’s promised extension of support, is the Minister aware of the research by Generation Rent, the Resolution Foundation and StepChange? It indicates that the debt crisis is compounding the health of our most vulnerable communities, which are often charged high rents for appalling housing conditions; this leads to the considerable deterioration of their health and mental well-being, particularly among women-led households.
We all agree that no one should lose their home or be evicted during this pandemic. What are we to say to the more than 200,000 families that have sought council assistance over the threat of homelessness in the last six months? Generation Rent says that we may not know the true extent of the harm caused, particularly to those who are most vulnerable. Does the Minister agree that these stop-and-start, ad-hoc outbursts, have been inconsistent? Uncertainty regarding packages places immense burdens and pressures on families. The only solution is to eradicate the debt incurred during the pandemic.
I hope that the Minister will heed the call of all parliamentarians.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the welcome extension of the ban on bailiff enforcement until 31 May, and I thank all noble Lords for participating in this debate. I also thank the Minister for his letter to me, dated 10 February, following the previous SI debate on 2 February.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and my noble friends Lord Shipley and Lord Greaves have said, it is regrettable that we continue to have this piecemeal approach. For us, it is regrettable, but for thousands of tenants teetering on the brink of eviction that often ends in homelessness, this piecemeal approach can be devastating—and for the children involved, it can be life-defining.
Perhaps the Minister looks to the devolved nations with a little envy as he goes through this Groundhog Day experience once more. The Northern Ireland Executive, for example, have just announced an extension of eviction protections to the end of September, providing tenants with greater stability. Can he consider the feasibility of an extension of that nature? In possible anticipation of the response, I recall the Government’s argument against ending the unfairness of tenant fees—already introduced in Scotland—which was that it was a different marketplace. In the end, it was not a different marketplace, and they did introduce that change. Can the Minister share with us what evidence he has that landlords are applying this only in the most egregious of cases? Does he acknowledge that, over the winter lockdown, 500 households were evicted from their homes?
In his letter to me, the Minister makes the case that the policies are working because only 7% of tenants are affected. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, described, the astonishing growth in the PRS over the past decade alone means that this 7% are the 460,000 tenancies that have fallen behind on their rent, as StepChange reported only this week. Indeed, 150,000 private sector tenants face the risk of eviction in the next 12 months. Given that one of the main causes of homelessness is the end of a private tenancy, and given that the Government are committed to ending rough sleeping, prevention in this area is fundamental.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said that evictions are on hold. That is not the case. This SI stops bailiffs at the final stage of an eviction, but your landlord still may serve an eviction notice and you still may have to go to a hearing. Often, when a Section 21 notice is served, it finds no resistance because it is a fait accompli. Therefore, they are often not measured or known about. Can the Minister undertake to re-examine the issue of allowing judges to have discretion to prevent an eviction if rent arrears are due to the Covid pandemic, thereby fulfilling Robert Jenrick’s promise, referred to earlier? The discretion on such issues of judges such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, would be most welcome, as evidenced by his considered and eloquent maiden speech. I look forward to hearing many more speeches from him, hopefully with more generous time slots.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, made the case that the majority of landlords are not businesses, but the Government’s English private landlord survey shows that over half of all tenancies now are with landlords who own five or more properties—and that number is growing. The same research shows that the main reasons why people become landlords are a preference for investing in property over other investments, and as a pension contribution. Only 4% became a landlord to let property and rely on that income as a full-time business.
I thank Generation Rent and the NRLA for their briefings. Landlords and charities are united in their calls for the 800,000 renters in arrears to get urgent help with their debt crisis, which is damaging their credit scores and will make it even harder for them to access housing in future. Generation Rent goes on to propose, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, described, a Covid rent debt fund. It would cost £288 million, clear rent arrears and compensate landlords for up to 80% of the rent owed. However, these must be grants, not loans, because so many renters started this pandemic without any savings, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, described. They were already spending a third of their income on rent. Citizens Advice tells us that the tenants who use its services would take seven years to pay off their current arrears.
The Minister has already told us about the unprecedented package of financial support, but £180 million for discretionary housing payments was at the start of this pandemic; it has not been increased to recognise the significant increase in universal credit claims. The local housing allowance is now frozen, and that is for only the bottom 30%. This level of spend pales into insignificance when compared to the stamp duty holiday that cost the Government £1.5 billion, whereas Generation Rent’s proposed scheme to help tenants would cost £288 million. The shocking disparity in subsidies to home owners in comparison speaks volumes about the attitude of this Government. What we need is a similar level of subsidy and support for those who rent.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I open by congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, on his maiden speech. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, described it as a modest maiden speech. I assure the noble and learned Lord that that was a compliment. I thought that it was a very good maiden speech, as well as a modest one.
There have been various themes to today’s debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said, it is a bit like Groundhog Day. We have had a number of statutory instrument debates on this subject; we have also had a regret Motion. The themes have been similar—not surprisingly —but the numbers are growing, and that is not surprising either.
Before I come to that, I want to pick up a point made by the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Cormack, about possible procedural changes so that we are not in the position we are in now where we are debating measures that have already come into place and which will expire fairly shortly. I was interested in the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that some sort of Grand Committee should be set up where these matters could possibly be debated and voted on in good time.
The themes of this debate have focused on urging the Government to come up with some sort of long-term plan to get round this mounting debt problem. We have all received the same briefings from Generation Rent, Citizens Advice and the National Landlords Association. The figures have been quoted by a number of noble Lords. The central point, which all noble Lords have made, is the need for a plan to get out of this problem, whether by low-interest loans or giving people who are in debt money. There are different solutions, and I understand that there are pros and cons to each solution. What I would like to hear from the Minister is the plan. How are the Government trying to address this issue so that there is a solution and so that, as landlords and tenants emerge from the pandemic, they are not lumbered with a lifetime of debt, which they will find very difficult to get out of? If they have court orders against them, that will make it even more difficult for them.
I do not want to repeat all the numbers that have been quoted, but the central point—on which I hope we will hear something from the Minister—is whether the Government are looking at solutions that have been adopted in other countries in the United Kingdom and whether they are looking at a long-term solution so that we will not come back here again wondering how to find a way out of this massive and mounting debt crisis.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I fear that the somewhat innocuous title of these regulations ought to have a health warning below it along the lines of “Light blue touchpaper and stand well back” because some of the speeches have taken us far and wide.
Let me start with some of the central points. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, said that we live in a police state. We do not. We live in a state with police. I assure the noble Lord and the House that, as I have said on a number of occasions, the rule of law runs through me like “Blackpool” runs through a stick of Blackpool rock. I acknowledge the importance of protest; we will debate that issue in other Bills. I assure the noble Lord and other speakers that that is not an issue so far as I am concerned.
As I have mentioned the rule of law, I want to take a moment again to welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I regret that he had such limited time for his maiden speech, although at least he got to the Chamber—I was stuck in Grand Committee. He made two points in the short time he had. First, he used the word “unique”. We are indeed living in unique times and must have unique responses. Secondly, he talked about a cross-sector working group. Indeed, a number of the points made by noble Lords in this debate show that what we are talking about is not just a Ministry of Justice issue; it is really an MHCLG issue, and a number of the issues will have been heard by that department. I will personally make sure that they are passed on because, although the Ministry of Justice is responsible for courts and procedures, underlying housing policy, which a lot of contributions have gone to, is not the responsibility of my department. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, is right that, in this area, as in so many areas of government—in my short time here, I have realised this—the acronym OGD, standing for “other government departments”, is about the most important acronym there is. In fact, it seems that all acronyms in the Civil Service are three letters. It loves its three-letter acronyms. I might start calling them the TLAs.
My noble friend Lord Cormack and other noble Lords made another broad point about the way we deal with coronavirus business in this House. I say with great respect that that is well above my pay grade, not least because my pay grade is an unpaid pay grade. I am sure that that point will have been heard by the relevant authorities, but I hope that my noble friend Lord Cormack and others will forgive me if I do not respond to them particularly.
My noble friend Lord Lilley made a broad point about the pandemic measures. In so far as I was included in his charge of palpable nonsense, I respectfully but firmly disagree. What we are seeking to do here is within the public health regulations. We are seeking to provide a balance between the undoubted needs of renters and the undoubted demands of landlords.
Turning to some of the points that are more relevant to this SI, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked about short extensions. That is why I indicated to the House—clearly, I hope—that we will extend this to 31 May. I assure my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering that there will not be a gap. We will ensure that the regulations are seamless.
Why do we not want to put a loan system in place? It is because we do not think that adding more debt is the way out here. We prefer to proceed as the Chancellor has proceeded by giving non-repayable finance to renters and enabling landlords to benefit from such things as mortgage payment holidays, which are available until July.
My noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth— I am also a former tenant of Gray’s Inn, though I should make it clear I was not evicted—asked whether we are putting something in place for the long term. That is, as I have said, a matter for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but I assure my noble friend and the House that, while it is always a pleasure to speak from this Dispatch Box, I do not want to have to come back time and again with Groundhog Day regulations either. That is why I have done my best to ensure that everybody now has visibility until the end of May.
I will pass on to my colleagues at MHCLG the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Best, that housing could be sold to social housing landlords.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, said that stamp duty helps homeowners; it helps homebuyers, and the reasons for the stamp duty holiday were set out in the Budget. We are trying to maintain a fair balance here between renters on the one hand and landlords on the other. In that context, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, is absolutely right. Evictions are the last resort, which is why we have structured the exemptions in the way we have. The exemptions list is designed to ensure that evictions take place only in cases where they are really required.
One exemption, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said, is the six months of arrears. As I said in opening this debate, those arrears must be looked at in the context of the unprecedented financial support that this Government have provided to renters.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said that we are playing fast and loose with the law. I assure her that that is the last thing I would allow to happen. She may disagree with my views on legal matters, but I can assure her that respect for the rule of law is, as I have said, part of my very being.
Ultimately, as a number of noble Lords mentioned, including the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, we have a balance between renters and landlords. He was right to highlight small landlords. Although I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, that some landlords own a number of properties, there are vast numbers of landlords who own only one or two properties and look to the income from them to pay their outgoings and, for a number of people, their pension income. Although I heard with respect the passionate speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, she looked at it only—I say respectfully—from the point of view of renters.
Our measures have had significant results. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said there were over 500 eviction orders in the last quarter of 2020, but that must be compared with the last quarter of 2019—a normal quarter—when there were 22,444. These measures have had a very significant impact. As this debate has shown, I am assailed on the one hand by renters for not doing enough and on the other by landlords for not considering their position. In response to my noble friend Lady Altmann, I am afraid we do not see overseas landlords coming home as a special case; their right to possession will have to be found in the regulations as they are set out.
I conclude the time I have available on a more positive note. A number of speakers mentioned the mediation scheme. Mediation is quite new to our system of law but, in the time that we have had it, it has proved its worth time and again. This is only one area where I am confident that mediation schemes can in many cases achieve far more than a formal court process, and I am proud that we have started the pilot. I confirm that we will look at its results very carefully to see whether we can roll out mediation not only in these cases but across civil justice much more broadly. My experience from my previous incarnation as a practising lawyer and the materials I have read as a Minister show that, in many cases, mediation enables people to resolve their disputes and vindicate their legal rights in a better way than a formal court process can.
In the short time still available, I will respond to a couple of points which I have not yet referred to. When at university, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, squeezed a five-hour essay into two hours’ preparation; today he squeezed a five-minute speech into the two minutes he was allotted. He highlighted the balance we are seeking to draw, and that is the response I give, with respect, to the two Front-Bench speakers, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. We will look at what other parts of the country do; I am a great fan of Scots law and will impress on my MHCLG colleagues that they should look at Scotland and other parts of our United Kingdom for answers on this as well.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that there is work on what he calls a long-term plan. It is not for me—a mere humble Ministry of Justice Minister—to reveal on a Thursday afternoon the details of that plan, but I am conscious that it is being worked on. Of course we do not want a cliff edge. We need to work out what the response will be from 31 May onwards.
Given the time, I hope that the House will permit me to respond in writing to the points I have not been able to deal with orally. I apologise to those speakers to whom I have not been able to respond personally. I acknowledge the strength of feeling across the House which goes beyond these regulations but, if I may ask the House to focus for a moment on these regulations, I commend them to the House and beg to move.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing. We come to the joint debate on the three Motions relating to the Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Temporary Exceptions) Regulations 2021. The time limit is one hour.
Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Temporary Exceptions) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
That this House regrets that the Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Temporary Exceptions) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/58) will have a detrimental impact on heavy goods vehicle drivers and the hours they will be required to work, and does not provide clarity for such drivers on how the temporary exemptions to requirements for rest breaks will operate.
Relevant document: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
This instrument was laid on 21 January and came into force on 22 January. As a negative instrument, we had no opportunity to debate it here before it came into effect. It was an extension of the temporary suspension of regulations on drivers’ hours and tachographs which applied from 23 December to 21 January. These regulations allow an increase in the maximum drivers’ hours from nine or 10 hours to 11 hours driving per day. They also allow a weekly rest period to be taken after seven days rather than six, and the fortnightly limits on hours driven increase from 90 to 96 hours.
These restrictions were initially introduced in the face of disruption in December due to coronavirus restrictions and the very heavy traffic to the ports caused by pre-Brexit stockpiling. There were long queues on the motorways in Kent and elsewhere, amid stories of drivers stuck in their cabs for days with the accompanying lack of toilet and washing facilities. There was an expectation, which I think we all shared, of further disruption to traffic through the borders as the additional Brexit bureaucracy kicked in during January. The last-minute nature of the agreement had not allowed time for hauliers to prepare.
However, what happened was rather different. Although it takes much longer to deal with the paperwork, the lorry queues did not materialise because many hauliers and many companies, particularly SMEs, simply opted out of the market and ceased to send goods to the EU. Hence, the officially confirmed 41% drop in EU trade during January. Covid has had an impact as well, of course, but trade within the EU dropped by only 10%.
Let me remind noble Lords why we have these strict rules on driving hours. They are part of our previous EU membership. They are there for road safety reasons, based on accident statistics. As a country, we have always been very proud of our road safety record. It is nevertheless true that some of our worst motorway accidents have been caused by lorries, where a significant factor has been driver tiredness. Limits on drivers’ hours are also an issue of decent, humane working conditions. This is especially important in an international industry with lots of small companies and solo operators.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. Given that long queues have not been a problem, why is it necessary to renew these exemptions? The Government cite shortage of drivers as a reason why longer hours are necessary. However, the Road Haulage Association reports a fall in the number of drivers—especially foreign drivers—willing to drive in the UK because of border bureaucracy. Does the Minister have any figures on this?
The Government talk about temporary teething problems at the borders but Brexit is permanent, and so is the bureaucracy that comes with it. Can the Minister give us an assurance that she will not be back here next month asking for further relaxation? This decline in road safety standards and erosion of workers’ rights cannot become permanent. If she cannot give us that assurance, can she at least ensure that in future this will not be slipped through by negative procedure. The trade union Unite emphasises the cumulative impact of fatigue, so the longer this goes on, the more dangerous it becomes.
When the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee drew our attention to these regulations, it emphasised how vague some aspects are. Can the Minister provide clarity on the meaning of the guidance that these exemptions should be applied only “where necessary”? How has it been enforced? The DVSA monitors and checks these records, so can we have an analysis of those checks from the last couple of months?
The exceptions are very broad and apply across the country, not just on particular routes to the ports. Why not? Are checks being undertaken outside port areas to see if there is any abuse of these laxer rules? The relaxation of the rules was requested by industry bodies and Defra. Can the Minister confirm that road safety bodies were consulted? What was their view?
I put down this regret Motion primarily out of concern for road safety, but also because of concern about the situation at our borders. Can the Minister update us on progress with the inland border facilities the Government are building? Those are designed to allow drivers to rest up as well as to process loads and provide border paperwork facilities. Those facilities should solve any problems and make further relaxation of these rules unnecessary. I do not intend to call a vote at this time. My purpose is to seek answers and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness and to speak to my regret Motion on these regulations. I share many of her concerns. I find the Explanatory Memorandum particularly arrogant and vague on the reasons for the need for this regulation. Paragraph 7.2 says that
“disruption to … supply chains could occur at very short notice.”
There has been no evidence of this happening—I shall come on to the number of vehicles going through in a minute—or even of any fear of it happening ever since the new regulations came in at the beginning of January.
Everybody knew that there were new regulations. We had spoken before in this House about the fact that many people were unprepared and that the Government were pretty unprepared as well, but there is no change likely to happen at the moment. As for the situation having worsened substantially during the last month, how has it worsened?
The Explanatory Memorandum says:
“Some usual mitigations (such as training more drivers) are not available.”
There has not been a need for more drivers because the traffic has dramatically dropped. Then it says:
“The situation is exacerbated by the impact on vehicle flows of changes to border controls following the end of the transitions period of the UK’s exit from the EU.”
Where is the evidence for that? There have just been fewer trucks because a lot of people are deciding not to go, for reasons that we have debated.
The noble Baroness talked about the extension of hours permitted in these regulations. On the face of it, it is not very great but, on the other hand, it comes on top of some pretty long hours limits anyway. As she so rightly says, this is actually a serious road safety issue. Can the Minister tell us whether there is any evidence of further accidents due to this? How much enforcement of the longer hours has taken place, and has any action been taken? I suspect that, as with most other tachograph issues, it is done only very rarely.
I think the real issue here is that we have fewer drivers, and we also have many fewer trucks. I want to spend a minute or two looking at the chaos that I think there has been over the statistics of how many trucks have been counted going out of the UK. The Government published a press story on, I think, 7 February disputing the figures published by the Road Haulage Association. The Road Haulage Association looks after its members’ interests, and it suggested that the loads to the EU— I quote from its press release—had
“reduced by as much as 68 percent”
since January this year. It wrote to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster explaining this, and the Government are basically saying it is not true. Somebody must be able to count; it is surely pathetic. I tend to believe the RHA because it has an interest in looking after its members’ interests—they do not want to see delays—whereas the Government are trying to say that everything is all right. This has gone on, with an argument in a letter between the Office for Statistics Regulation and Richard Laux, the chief statistician of the Cabinet Office, talking about whether the data is published or not. The Cabinet Office then published a note to accompany the original press story. In other words, this is damage limitation. The key, to me, is a quote from the Port of Dover on 8 February that said:
“Traffic continues to flow smoothly through the Port of Dover post-Brexit transition.”
Does that not tell us that there is no problem that needs to be cured?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned, I hope the Minister will assure the House when she responds that this will be the last time that they try to extend these regulations, and there will be no more of these because, as the noble Baroness said, this is a road safety issue. The limits that were necessary before the Covid epidemic and before Brexit are still necessary now. It seems to me that, in the eyes of the Government, the supply chain is more important than road safety, and that is a very serious issue.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
These regulations have the effect of increasing the fortnightly driving limit from 90 hours to 96 hours. They also, as a result, raise the likelihood of a driver not being able to take proper rest away from work—that is, away from the cab of their vehicle. There have been other relaxations of drivers’ hours since April 2020, with this latest one following the UK-EU agreement being for the longest period of time. Normally, such relaxations are for very short periods of time and have been very specific to particular sections of the industry. However, due to the definition of “exceptional circumstances”, this latest relaxation in reality covers practically every professional HGV driver in the country, including those delivering to the UK from other countries.
It also needs to be said that the key purpose of drivers’ hours regulations is road safety and the welfare of drivers. Any relaxation potentially puts not just the drivers covered at risk but all road users as well, through HGV drivers either not having appropriate periods of rest or working for longer periods of time or both. Could the Government indicate in their response whether these latest regulations, which come to an end in about two weeks’ time, are going to be further extended beyond then? If so, why?
In laying these regulations, the Department for Transport said that the relaxations
“continue to be required because of both delays at the borders and the reduction in driver numbers due to Covid-19.”
Could the Government in their response say what these delays at the border are and what has caused them? The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee considered these regulations and concluded:
“Although a contingency provision may be needed, we were not clear about the conditions in which these exemptions are intended to be used and where the responsibility for implementing these decisions lies. The House may wish to ask the Minister to provide a fuller explanation.”
That is what I am now doing. Expanding on this, the committee said:
“These relaxations are not restricted to port areas or to essential supplies, and the definition of when they can be used, ‘when necessary’, is very vague. There is also some blurring in this policy between the responsibilities of the driver and the operator in deciding when to use the extended hours, and we are concerned that drivers may feel under pressure to use them. A submission from Unite the Union illustrates the problems likely to arise. The sector is very diverse, with both employed and self-employed drivers, and the balances of risks and advantages may differ between these groups.”
No doubt the Minister will wish to comment on those observations from the committee.
Could the Government also say in their response to what extent the increase in the fortnightly driving limit—from 90 hours to 96 hours—has actually been used, and whether it has been used more in relation to some routes than others, whether it has been used more by some firms than others, and whether it has been used more by some sectors than others? Could the Government also say under what circumstance and why the allowable increase in hours has been applied, so that we can have an idea of how and address what situations the “where necessary” criteria has actually been brought into play.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee referred to the submission from Unite the Union. One gets the impression that the committee gave rather more consideration to what Unite had to say than perhaps the Government did. When asked by the committee who had been consulted, and whether any drivers’ representatives had been included, the Department for Transport replied:
“Relaxations to drivers’ hours rules were sought by a number of individual firms, representative bodies and Defra … Unite the Union was consulted informally — and for the record was not in support of the relaxation as made.”
What a dismissive response. The view of Unite—and the drivers’ regulations are there for safety reasons—was simply “for the record” following informal consultation as far as the DfT was concerned, not views that should be reported with reasons given why they were not taken on board. How revealing that we have to turn to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to find out the concern of Unite, since there is nothing in the Explanatory Memorandum, which simply states:
“There has been no formal consultation on this Instrument, although advice has been taken from representatives from the logistics and retail sector”,
and that
“an impact assessment has not been produced”.
Could the Government tell us what their assessment was, and the basis of that assessment, of the potential impact of this instrument on safety, bearing in mind that a key part of Unite’s concerns was that, the longer the period of relaxation from the drivers’ hours rules—now some three months—the greater the potential risk to safety? It is not enough to say that, under the relaxation,
“Drivers should not be expected to drive whilst tired”.
If that is deemed a responsible approach, then there is no need for any rules at all beyond that. In its submission to the committee, Unite expresses concern about the ability of enforcement officers to be able to enforce the relaxed regulations effectively, not least in respect of international drivers whose operating base may be in another country. No doubt in their reply the Government will wish to provide the hard evidence that enforcement officers had enforced the regulations effectively.
Unite welcomes the fact that drivers and their unions should be involved in managing any relaxation, but said that
“in reality drivers are not given the choice, operators simply plan drivers’ routes and then apply a relaxation if needed.”
Do the Government accept that that is the reality? If not, could they provide the evidence that it is not the case?
Concluding its submission to the committee, Unite said it understood
“that there are often genuine reasons for using a relaxation in very limited circumstances. This relaxation, however, is far more than that and in our opinion goes much further than is actually necessary even under these very difficult circumstances”.
Unite believes this could be
“the start of watering down vital safety rules for professional drivers.”
This is now the opportunity for the Government to provide the hard evidence to prove that these potentially safety-compromising regulations, applicable to practically every professional HGV driver and for a longer period than normal, have been necessary and that it was not a case of bringing them in simply because some firms wanted them so that they were there if required across the board without the Government really knowing either whether they really were required across the board or the extent to which they would be required.
Earl Attlee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have introduced this debate. Before speaking to it, I remind the House that I still drive heavy goods vehicles under the drivers’ hours rules from time to time and for private purposes. Some of these vehicles are very heavy indeed and are not just a horsebox. However, the new regulations in question are very unlikely to affect me.
In the distant past I have driven more extensively for commercial reasons under the drivers’ hours rules. Many years ago, either under military authorisation or on international aid operations, I drove hours far in excess of what are allowed under civilian rules. The House should know that the military nowadays adheres— I would say slavishly—to the civilian rules, even on operations. It may help the House to be aware that I am a qualified HGV driving instructor, although I accept that I might be a little out of date.
There are two reasons why we have limits on drivers’ hours. The first and most important is safety, as observed by many noble Lords. Clearly, if a driver drives for too long or takes insufficient rest, there is a direct safety consequence. However, there is another important reason for having the rules, and that is to set an economic level playing field. Road haulage operations are extremely competitive, and one easy way of securing an economic advantage is to make the drivers work harder for longer and to take greater risks with fatigue. The combination of the drivers’ hours rules and the working time directive sets a floor so that drivers are not abused, safety is maintained and, most importantly, operators have to find other ways of being more competitive. The Minister is helping in that regard by looking more closely still at longer and heavier vehicles.
The rules have been carefully set and devised over many years, perhaps before we even joined the EU, so that a competent driver, adhering to the rules over many years, can earn a living while not putting himself or herself or others at risk of fatigue, and, as I have already indicated, the rules set an economic baseline. This means that relaxing the rules very slightly for a few months will not create a safety problem, and I do not believe the Minister would have made this order if that were the case. These are very minor flexibilities designed to cope with the current situation, or with one that could arise. I do not believe that businesses will build them into their business model because they are such temporary exemptions, nor do I believe that they will plan their day-to-day transport operations taking account of the flexibilities. The flexibilities are designed to deal with something that goes wrong; they should not be regarded as normal.
Another point that should not be overlooked is that it can be very stressful for conscientious drivers to adhere to the drivers’ hours rules, especially in the face of disruption. Avoidably stressing drivers is not, I suggest, a sensible course of action.
From my direct personal experience of these matters, I can tell the House that the amending regulations do not compromise safety. I urge the House to kindly reject the Motions and support the Minister and the sensible, temporary flexibilities that she has provided the industry with.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend. I will be supporting the regulations before us, but I have a number of questions for the Minister.
The regulations expire at the end of March but, as we learned when the Minister summed up the debate called by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach on 4 March, controls are to be introduced at UK ports for the first time in April and again in July. Does it not seem simple sensible to keep these extensions on the table until the new controls have had the chance to bed down, so that we can see whether they cause any serious delays at ports?
The exceptions are marginal; it is an extension of six hours in every fortnight, so I imagine the Minister will say the impact is quite low. I note the dismay that was expressed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on a number of issues in looking at the this instrument, not least, I understand from paragraph 6 of the report, that Parliament was not one of the bodies notified of the exception. Could the Minister confirm whether the Health and Safety Executive and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents have been involved in the drafting and reviewing of the measures before us?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I have a number of concerns, which he has eloquently addressed, about the level to which the measures are deemed to be necessary and about why the legislation is all framed in relation to the driver, putting a lot of emphasis regarding enforcement and the understanding of what is necessary on the driver. The Minister will be aware that there is a severe shortage of drivers of heavy goods vehicles in this regard. I note in passing that a number of these drivers, based in North Yorkshire, come from Poland and other parts of the European Union, meaning that, at least initially, they are not used to driving on the left-hand side of the road. I do not know whether that is a factor that the Minister has taken into consideration.
Is it the Minister’s intention that, when the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency looks at the operator records, including tachographs, following on from this extension, the checks will be reported to Parliament so that we in both Houses can form a view as to whether the system has been abused in any way? That would enable both her department and this House in particular to come forward with simpler, clearer legislation without the need for so much administration, as called for in paragraph 16 of the committee report.
The normal restrictions on drivers’ hours are based on accident statistics for safety reasons. So why will they be lifted? On what basis? Have there been fewer accidents?
Does the Minister stand by the remarks that she made on 4 March that the measures taken regarding the Northern Ireland protocol are temporary, technical steps? Were they perhaps ill advised, given that we have now been taken to court by the European Union in this regard?
I will add two further questions. Is the Minister in a position to address the issue of a potential shortage of drivers? There is also a particular problem of trucks returning empty from the European Union. Are these issues that the Government are likely to address?
I welcome the fact that the Minister is committed to communicating, as she put it on 4 March, with the interested parties in the UK and with our European Union counterparts. It would be helpful to know what communications she is having in connection with the further controls in April and July.
This is quite a nostalgic journey for me, as I started my days in politics as a staffer for the European Conservatives in the European Parliament, working with eminent spokesmen such as the late James Moorhouse and, latterly, Bill Newton Dunn. I take a close and continuing interest in these matters before the House this afternoon.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee had, if not harsh words, some words of doubt about the Government’s proposals. Partly for those reasons, I support some of the sentiments expressed by those who seek to oppose these regulations. Among the concerns that the committee raised was the lack of parliamentary scrutiny before these exceptions came into force—a familiar source of complaint. I do not particularly blame the noble Baroness for this, as it seems all too typical of the present Government that the only chance the House has to debate these regulations is when they have come into force and there is not much we can do about them. There seems to be a continuing pattern here, which Ministers should look at.
The committee went on to ask about the guidance to use the exceptions only “where necessary”—a vague phrase. On its behalf, we seek a definition from the Minister on when a “where necessary” situation will arise. It went on to talk about whether the system would be abused for commercial advantage. Most heavy goods vehicle operators in the United Kingdom are perfectly reputable people, but there is a fringe element within the road haulage industry where pressure on drivers to exceed permitted hours happens from time to time and it is difficult for drivers, particularly for smaller operators, to resist.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley mentioned consultation, particularly with the primary trade union involved in heavy goods vehicle operation in this country, Unite. A piece of Civil Service wording came back about that consultation. I forget the exact words, but it was that the union was not kindly disposed to the proposals on excessive hours. That was one way of putting it. In December, Unite issued a press release about the increase in drivers’ hours, under the heading
“Unite condemns ‘dangerous and useless’ relaxation of HGV driving rules in response to Dover delays”.
That is a bit stronger than we were led to believe from the committee’s wording and a lot stronger than the Government might like. I wonder whether that informal consultation with the trade union was genuine or consisted of a telephone call from the Minister’s department saying, “This is exactly what we are going to do”.
What we are talking about is a solution in search of a problem. It is not a lack of drivers or drivers’ hours causing delay but a lack of customs officers in the Port of Dover in particular. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred to the number of empty vehicles coming back from the continent. It is no secret that the Road Haulage Association is annoyed by what it sees as a failure of the Government to recruit the necessary number of customs agents to ensure that these delays do not continue. It is not as though this problem has arisen unexpectedly; it is over four years since the country voted to leave the EU, yet we seem no nearer to recruiting sufficient customs agents to help prevent these delays.
I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to last Sunday’s Observer. Under a heading about how delays at ports would go on for months, Mr Richard Ballantyne, the head of the British Ports Association, said that most ports had seen a recovery in shipments over recent weeks, although the delay to import checks had
“put off a problem rather than resolved it”.
The Road Haulage Association says pretty much the same. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, who has been appointed by the Government to resolve these problems, says that they are temporary and that, since January, things have picked up. I go back to the point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh: there are still a heck of a lot of heavy lorries passing between this country and the European Union. The trouble is that too many of them are empty, for the reasons that I have just outlined. Increasing drivers’ hours and the consequential impact on road safety are not going to help that. I hope that the Minister can reassure us this afternoon and tell us how many extra customs agents—a question I put to her some weeks ago, but no answer came—have been recruited and whether she is tackling the real problem, rather than the Government sending up a smokescreen, as these proposals appear to be.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, while it is inevitable that, in debating these regulations, one might legitimately feel that we have missed the bus, it would be more appropriate to apply the term déjà vu. Taking note of something that has already happened is of rather less value that scrutinising proposals and offering advice before implementation. It is now only a matter of a few days before these temporary provisions end. I assume that we might hold a similar debate in a couple of months if we see a further extension of the provisions but, with déjà vu, we can at least look back at the approach to drivers’ hours and conditions to contrast and compare. In doing so, perhaps we might better judge the validity or otherwise of these regulations.
Since the 1930s, Governments have recognised that commercial pressures can lead transport operators and drivers to indulge in excessive driving that can endanger themselves and other road users. Fatigue and its effects on driving safety were first properly recognised in the Road and Rail Traffic Act 1933, which, incidentally, was two years before we even had driving tests in this country. It was introduced to protect us all from the negative effects that I mentioned, and it began a process in which Governments ever since have followed some basic principles, namely: promoting road safety by requiring drivers to have adequate rest and breaks, and preventing excessive driving; a desire for common international rules and to ensure that competition between hauliers and coach operators is fair; and giving drivers reasonable conditions of work and leisure, and stopping exploitation.
UK legislation on drivers’ hours was introduced by the Transport Act 1968. When the UK joined the then EEC, it adopted the European social regulations of 1969. The use of tachographs had been compulsory in the EU since 1975, but the UK initially failed to implement this requirement until obliged to do so in 1981. The only major changes since then have been to incorporate the provisions of the working time directive in 2005, limiting total working time, although we have introduced many detailed provisions of implementation by statutory instrument since then. By and large, with the agreement of business and the unions, we have adhered to these provisions, with the drivers’ hours regulations being especially strictly followed.
In 2009, the then Government held a consultation on the clarity of the rules which indicated that the complexity and finer details were still misunderstood. Governments have expressly stated that only in exceptional circumstances could there be any amendment to the rules. Looking back, that policy has been correctly followed. Examples of variance and relaxation came about with the foot and mouth disease in 2007, a derogation for military reservists, also in 2007 and the proposed fuel tanker drivers’ strike in 2012. The current Government introduced emergency relaxation, as we know, to protect the supply chain because of Covid-19 between March and May last year. They are continuing to pursue this by successive extensions, citing not only the Covid situation but the effects from us leaving the EU. To the extent that the pressures are temporary, the regulations can be accepted but, as we move out of the pandemic, any wish to continue these arrangements to cover ongoing problems brought about by our new EU status and our cross-border trade should be examined more vigorously.
There are some concerns that there could be either repeated temporary easing of regulations, or a longer-term or permanent situation. I would like the Minister to give greater assurances on this in her concluding remarks. I would also be grateful if she could confirm that the proposals we are looking at today change only drivers’ hours and rest periods, and that the more extensive rules and regulations dealing with the way in which driving periods and rest are allocated in the course of any week, and compensation arrangements for reductions in rest periods, are not being affected by these provisions. Employers and operators need reassurance on this point. Employers in particular have great difficulty in interpreting anything that is not crystal clear as to the legal position. It would be most unfair if these changes encouraged unfair competition. We all have a duty to protect both employers and employees, just as was described and hoped for back in 1933—but, of course, I will support my noble friend on these measures.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, first, I have listened very carefully to the comments made by the noble Lords who put down the regret Motions that triggered this debate. In particular, it is very good to see the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, again—albeit virtually —as we met regularly over many years during my time as an MEP. He is indeed very expert on these matters. Today, however, I will be taking a rather different point of view, I am afraid.
I begin by echoing many of the points made by my noble friends Lord Attlee and Lord Kirkhope. A few days before Christmas, the President of France took the arbitrary decision to announce a travel ban on all lorries travelling between the UK and Calais. Around 3,000 drivers were thrown to the wolves and told that they would need a Covid test before they would be able to proceed. They were left high and dry in the most appalling circumstances. Despite the heroic efforts of our Armed Forces, the NHS and volunteers, it took several days and more. None of those drivers would have ever seen their families at such a special time.
Should I put these delays down to a force majeure or exceptional circumstances? Was there inclement weather? No, there was not. Was there industrial action, or were there blockades? No, there were not. Actually, it was neither: it was, unfortunately, blatant politicking of the worst order. The drivers ended up as pawns in a political game that still continues. This was an avoidable catastrophe.
No noble Lords have so far mentioned what I am about to say. The main thing about the temporary exemptions is that they had already been agreed and put in place by the European Commission as well as the UK Government because, of course, our Regulation 2021 No. 58 is a combination of EC Regulations 561/ 2006 and 1071/2009, which deal with drivers’ hours and tachographs. Enlargement in 2004—plus Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia latterly—highlighted the challenges that the hauliers faced as, geographically, the routes became more challenging. Annexes one to four of COM(2017) were compiled following the Council reports of 2013-14 on the performance of each member state. The UK always rated highly, with top marks on roadside checks and compliance—just to dispel the myth. Agreement followed to update the regulation.
For international transport to operate, flexibility is paramount. My former career was in the most highly regulated mode of transport: aviation. I negotiated the terms and conditions of thousands of crew over many years, including their scheduling agreements, as well as the regulation in the European Parliament on flight time limitations. I am therefore fully aware of the planned and unplanned operations that are required. I also covered road, rail and maritime, and was heavily involved in the regulation that we are discussing today. Just as an aside: if it were not for the flexibility of crew and supply chain and ground staff in maritime, road, rail and all these sectors, I doubt that any of us would ever get from A to B, and neither would the goods that we receive or send.
Sadly, Covid-19 has wreaked havoc across the globe. There is a Europe-wide shortage of drivers. Small operators with one or two lorries have been particularly badly hit, yet they have kept going throughout this pandemic, delivering medicines, food, fuel, essential goods and much more. They deserve better than this. There is no evidence to suggest that these temporary measures jeopardise lives. These drivers are highly professional and use their best judgment every day. They are hugely concerned about the lack of safe parking, which still exists, for their trucks across Europe. They are now being dragged into this appalling weaponising of the vaccine by the EU and have been caught up in the backlash.
I am pleased that my noble friend the Minister is updating the House today. This is required and maintained throughout the implementation, rather than delegated, rules, which the European Union frequently favours to keep Parliament out of the loop. I hope that the whole House will support the regulations but, more importantly, actively show its support for and gratitude to our road hauliers for the invaluable work that they have done and continue to do.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Berkeley, for giving me the opportunity to explain the Government’s position. Of course, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
Let me start by saying that we are absolutely committed to ensuring the welfare of drivers and protecting road safety. This Government recognise the importance of the long-standing drivers’ hours rules to achieving both of those objectives. We therefore deploy these relaxations with care.
It is worth considering the landscape back in mid-January when these regulations were laid. New customs arrangements had recently been put in place, and both traders and hauliers were adjusting to the new environment. This was still the case in mid-January. Covid infection rates were high, at 376 per 100,000, which might well have caused localised disruption to the availability of drivers. The training and testing of new drivers had stopped, causing additional pressures on a tight labour market for HGV drivers, and we were seeing a changing pattern of domestic retail demand due to lockdown. Finally, there remained the potential for unilateral interventions from third parties, as noted by my noble friend Lady Foster. For example, we saw the French Government unilaterally requiring Covid testing for hauliers. Other interventions clearly could have happened too. That was the landscape with which we were faced when we took this decision.
Furthermore, we heard concerns from those in the supply chain that localised disruptions might occur, and possibly at very short notice. We heard the concerns of Unite the Union and tried to mitigate them as much as we possibly could to ensure that any action we took was limited. The Government concluded that there was significant evidence to suggest that disruption could occur; therefore, as a precaution, we took the decision to continue with the temporary, limited extension to drivers’ hours.
The 44th report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee published on 4 February also acknowledged that contingency measures were required to deal with these risks. I thank the committee for its work on this SI, and I apologise if there was information missing from the Explanatory Memorandum that should have been included. I will encourage the department to do slightly better next time.
Some of today’s debate has focused very much on international haulage, which a number of noble Lords have mentioned; the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about fewer trucks going across via the short straits. However, this is not just about international haulage: the issues I have just outlined from the landscape that we were faced with also impacted domestic haulage, which is why it was so important that we put these changes in place. A couple of noble Lords have complained that Parliament was not able to scrutinise this SI, but this is a negative SI, which is a standard parliamentary procedure. We are scrutinising it today, but noble Lords will understand that we will have to follow parliamentary procedure, as we have in this case.
I turn to the actual implementation and the safety and welfare of drivers. It is important to remember that these changes are very limited in nature. In terms of the requirements in the rules, whether it be breaks during the day, daily or weekly rest periods or weekly and fortnightly driving limits, none of these have been removed. Some have been relaxed in a limited and controlled way, and I confirm that compensatory rest arrangements, which are all related to weekly rest, stay in place, and working-time rules for drivers are unaffected.
This previously unprecedented approach of relaxing drivers’ hours had already been used in the UK, in spring 2020, at the start of the pandemic. This approach was also taken by many parts of Europe at the time. The extent of the relaxations now in force is based on that experience, but it is even more limited, especially for domestic road transport. The guidance states that relaxation should be used “only where necessary” and not at the expense of driver or road safety. While we did not consult specific external parties on road safety, the Government are content that these measures are consistent with our ambitions for improved road safety.
Turning to the guidance that we published on 20 January, before the SI was laid, I note a number of concerns over the definition of “necessary”, when allowing the relaxations to be used. The guidance makes it very clear that any relaxation of these rules emphasises the necessity of the relaxation, particularly when other supply-chain management interventions may be available to alleviate issues. “Necessary” is not defined in the regulation itself, and it is liable to vary significantly case by case. Published guidance assists the consideration of what is and is not necessary, but the circumstances for each use will be different. Operators using domestic relaxation are required to indicate that they intend to use, or have used, the relaxation, which assists transparency and the later checking of compliance, including the context of necessity.
The guidance is material to whether the relaxations have been used correctly and reputably by operators and their transport managers—and, if they have not been, they can be held to account. The DVSA has extensive powers to investigate: it can investigate domestic and international hauliers and domestic operators, and it does this across the country, not just at the ports. Of course, it can issue penalties and refer operators and transport managers to the transport commissioners if there are infringements.
The guidance about relaxation explicitly confirms that
“employers remain responsible for the health and safety of their employees”.
It also confirms:
“Driver safety must not be compromised. Drivers should not be expected to drive while tired”.
It clearly states:
“The practical implementation of the temporary relaxation should be through agreement between employers and employees and driver representatives”,
such as Unite the Union. As noted, a requirement of the use of the current relaxations for domestic journeys is that the operator informs DfT that the relaxation will be used. Reported use of the current domestic relaxation has been very limited.
There are 16 haulage firms still using the relaxations that end on 31 March 2021—that is a total of 25 operating licences because, of course, one haulage company can have a couple of them. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked which sectors these companies are in. I do not have a detailed breakdown, and I am not entirely sure that, with 16 haulage firms, it would be useful, but most of them transport freight, and the rest supply fuel. As such, the information about the people using these relaxations is passed to the DVSA—obviously, its enforcement operators will be aware of who is using these relaxations, and they can check how they were used. It is also the case that drivers using them must note on the back of their tachograph charts or the printouts the reasons why they are exceeding the normally permitted limits.
There was also a comment in the SLSC report about the initial exceptions that the Government made in December, and I reassure noble Lords that, as with these regulations, we followed the agreed process. These were put in place administratively for up to 30 days—that is the process set out in the regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Snape, returned to the subject of customs agents, and I am delighted to be able to return to it again. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government have set out a new timetable for introducing border control processes to enable UK businesses to focus on recovering from the pandemic. This will also give us time to ensure that the inland border facilities are fully functional. Full border control processes will now be introduced on 1 January 2022, six months later than originally planned.
The Government do not directly employ customs agents or customs intermediaries, and we do not have a target for the number of customs agents. However, traders and hauliers are responding to customs requirements in a wide variety of ways. Many in the sector have innovated and brought in IT solutions to automate the process. This has reduced the number of staff required. We have helped by making more than £80 million of support available, including flexible grants that can be used for IT and training, as well as for recruitment.
There is an alternative universe. For a moment, let us assume that the Government had not taken this precautionary action and that, for whatever reason, freight flows had been impacted—perhaps to the extent set out in the Government’s reasonable worst-case scenario. In such circumstances, I could quite understand being hauled before your Lordships’ House to explain why, if we saw the possibility of freight disruption coming, we did nothing about it and were negligent in not temporarily extending drivers’ hours. Hindsight is a truly marvellous thing—and there has been a fair dollop of it in today’s debate. I remain content that we made the right decision and I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords. I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and to all noble Lords, that we will not be extending the relaxations beyond 31 March 2021, when this SI expires.
In summary, by enabling and extending the relaxations when we did, we reduced risk and enabled the supply chain to function. If there is a vote on the regret Motion, I respectfully ask noble Lords that they vote not content.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I will look carefully in Hansard, and I am sure that she will write to us in her usual courteous manner to answer any questions with which she has not been able to deal. I appreciate the detail and her final reassurance. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Lord Berkeley
That this House regrets that the Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Temporary Exceptions) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/58) will allow the continuation of relaxed restrictions on the normal rules on heavy goods vehicles drivers’ hours without evidence having been provided of the need for such a continuation or of its effect on road safety.
Relevant document: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Lord Rosser
That this House takes note of the Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Temporary Exceptions) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/58).
Relevant document: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
National Bus Strategy: England
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I first express our thanks to all those involved in the bus industry for the invaluable work that they have always done and continue to do, not least during Covid-19, to provide a vital service to the nation which brings enormous social and economic benefits that extend way beyond crude calculations of whether a bus service is “viable” based on revenue from fares compared with cost incurred. This Statement appears to recognise that point when it says that
“buses are not just an industry but almost a social service.”
I hope that this does not prove to be just a gimmicky phrase.
Over the last decade, we have seen the loss of 134 million bus miles, and some 3,000 local authority-supported bus services have been cut over the same period as a result of government policies that have led to ever-increasing fares—way above inflation outside London—and cuts in local government finances. Bus coverage in Britain is now the lowest it has been in 30 years, despite a rising population. Office for National Statistics figures appear to show that, in January, bus fares were up by 21% on the previous year—the highest yearly increase since figures began. I invite the Government to comment on that. If that is the case, the increase in fares has been some 70% over the last decade.
The Statement says that there will be £3 billion of government investment in the industry to deliver what is said in the Statement about passengers wanting
“more routes and services, easier information and greener buses … simple cheap flat fares”
and
“the kind of frequency that means you do not even have to look at the timetable before you get on the bus—and more services in the evening and at weekends.”
How much does that £3 billion amount to per year, and how did the Government come to the conclusion that £3 billion was the required figure? How many of the 134 million lost bus miles will be restored as a result of that investment?
The Secretary of State said in the Commons on Monday:
“We … would not be putting £3 billion in if we did not expect, as the bus strategy says, to make buses more affordable. It is central to our vision that they are not just practical, but the affordable means of transport.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/21; col. 52.]
Do the Government regard bus fares outside London as affordable at present? If not, what does making “buses more affordable” really mean in terms of reducing existing fares?
The Statement says that, by the end of June, all local authorities, with the bus operators’ support, will have to commit either to a statutory enhanced partnership with their bus operators or to franchising arrangements along the lines of those that apply in London. Local authorities, in collaboration with operators, will then produce bus service improvement plans by the end of October this year. What happens, though, if there is a difference of view between the local authority and the bus operators, since future government financial support would depend on there being no difference of view on whether there should be enhanced partnership or franchising arrangements? The Secretary of State appears to be keeping the power to himself to decide who has the capability and capacity to run franchising, which does not sound much like devolving responsibility, and rather more like continuing with tight central control. If the local authority wants franchising arrangements but the bus operators do not agree, against what criteria will the Secretary of State decide whether the local authority can or cannot run franchising?
The Statement also says that
“we will work with councils to introduce bus priority schemes this year, and we will roll out marketing to attract millions of new passengers to the network—people who have never used buses before.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/21; col. 49.]
How much will the Government invest in this marketing, and what form will it take? How many millions of new passengers will have to be attracted to the network—
“people who have never used buses before”—
for the Government to deem this marketing to have achieved its objective?
The Statement refers to passengers wanting greener buses. The Government promised 4,000 zero-emission buses over a year ago, but very little appears to have happened yet. There are over 30,000 buses in England alone. Under this new bus strategy, what percentage of the bus fleet will be zero-emission in two, five and eight years’ time, and how many new green jobs will be created in the bus and coach sector? We have already seen more than a thousand jobs lost in the bus and coach manufacturing industry since the pandemic started.
At the moment, this Government’s bus legacy is ever higher fares, ever fewer passengers, ever fewer bus services and little or no progress on zero-emission vehicles. If the new strategy delivers a major reversal of that policy, that will be very much welcomed, certainly when it happens. The Government’s responses to the issues and questions I have raised will give an indication of whether the new strategy is largely words, or whether it reflects a clearly thought through delivery plan with clear, specific and ambitious timetabled targets and the resources already committed to enable them to be delivered.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, this Statement is obviously welcome because it is so long overdue. We have been expecting it since 2019, and in the meantime the bus crisis has worsened in ways that we could not have imagined. At this point, I must specifically thank all who work in the bus industry and, in particular, remember those who have died from Covid during the last year. They have all undertaken a difficult and unexpectedly dangerous job. Because of the virus, the Government have spent the last year discouraging us from using buses, and it will be a hard task to get us back into the habit.
We welcome this strategy because it inherently accepts that the deregulation of the bus services outside London in the 1980s was a failure. It is a pity that it has taken so long to recognise this.
For the sake of the climate, to reduce congestion, and to reduce harmful emissions and their effects on our health, I welcome the intention to move to zero-emission buses. It is just a pity that it comes a week after the Budget which froze fuel duty and proposed reductions in APD, neither of which suggest a strategic approach to our climate change commitments.
The Government apparently do not have a firm date in mind for an end to sales of diesel buses. The Campaign for Better Transport suggests that 2025 is a reasonable and feasible date. Can the Minister explain how long they expect their consultation on this to run? Every week of consultation eats into the preparation time for the industry.
Encouraging British-built zero-emission buses is an excellent scheme. The Government announced in 2020 that they would invest £120 million in 4,000 zero-emission buses. More than a year on from that announcement, we still see nothing productive from this promise and await an announcement in the spring. The Government have already lost a lot of valuable time on this and the Minister herself recognises that only 2% of our bus fleet is electric. For a more just and equal society, I welcome the commitments to cheaper fares and more regular and frequent services. What the strategy lacks is any detail on how these cheaper fares will be paid for.
Fares are the result of a combination of factors that include several separate funding streams from the Government. They are hopelessly outdated and none of those funding streams incentivise greener vehicles or relate to the number of miles travelled. The emergency funding for bus services increased the confusion, with funding based on historical concessionary fare payments for passengers who were not actually travelling. I can see no detail on this but would welcome any proposals for reform that the Minister can tell us about. For certain, we will not see a significant step towards improvements in fares, such as integrated ticketing, simply by relying on current funding streams.
Most bus companies do not make excess profits. Indeed, in rural areas many have a problem just surviving. Local authorities already point to a £700 million funding gap on concessionary fares and the Government must deal with this long-standing underfunding before they can start to expect a commitment from local authorities for improvements to services. So this Statement needed to be ambitious, and indeed it is, but it lacks a level of detail and realistic steps towards targets that are essential if it is to be useful. For many local councils, the level of bus services is now so low that recovery will require a total revolution in funding. The £3 billion sounds a lot, but as there are 4.2 billion bus journeys a year in this country, I think that sets the scale of things in perspective.
This strategy is really just a skeleton. It has taken the Government two years to produce and lacks so much necessary detail. Therefore, it is way out of kilter to expect local authorities to sign up to either enhanced partnerships or franchising by June—that is less than three months for a decision requiring major financial and legal decisions. Moreover, local authorities are expected to produce bus improvement strategies by October. Many local authorities no longer have the expertise among their staff to responsibly make those decisions—but, if they do not opt for one or the other, they will not get further funding. That is a decision with a gun to their heads. So my question is, will they have the scope to change their minds after they initially opt for one or other route?
Franchising is a complex legal process. The Bus Services Act 2017 restricted franchising to authorities with elected mayors. I never understood why, and strenuous attempts were made to try to broaden this, but that is the law. Can the Minister explain if and when we can expect fresh legislation to allow a broader sweep of local authorities to franchise bus services? Do the Government now accept that some of the best services in Britain are council run and owned, and that the restriction on councils setting up and owning their own services needs to be lifted?
The Statement also refers to very welcome improvements to disabled access, and I want to press the Minister on this. The 2017 Act improved and clarified access priorities. There were further improvements proposed, which the Government did not accept at that time. Can the Minister give us details of what she plans and whether we can expect legislation and when? I would also welcome more details on government proposals for encouraging on-demand services. I agree that such innovation will be important for modernisation. The Minister referred to 17 trial areas. I am very keen to know how these areas will be chosen—or have they been chosen already? What are the criteria? Do they include average income levels, car ownership and so on? Was it a bidding process? Some of the Government’s ambitions rely on new infrastructure, such as bus lanes. Does the £3 billion cover that as well as buses themselves?
Finally, you cannot buy a painting-by-numbers kit and expect to produce a Rembrandt. This Statement is the bare outline of a vision for the future, and there is nothing wrong with that vision, but the Government seem to be leaving local authorities and bus companies to fill in the picture without making it clear where the resources will come from.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
Oh, my Lords—my officials and I spent a year working really hard on this strategy and it has been welcomed by bus operators, local authorities, passenger groups and groups representing disabled people. I am afraid that the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, completely took my breath away. I have never heard such a negative response to a strategy that has been so widely welcomed by pretty much everybody else. It may be that she has not fully read it. However, I hope to address some of her concerns, because I am really proud of it and I think it will do a really good job.
To be honest, we know that successive Governments have not prioritised buses. They have put them to one side and focused on more shiny things. That includes Labour, and the Liberal Democrats in coalition. What is different is that this Conservative Government are stepping up and delivering for buses. This is the biggest reform and support package for buses in decades. I am astonished that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, does not see that. The strategy will result in improved journeys for millions of passengers. It brings local authorities and operators together to get the best from both worlds to provide for passengers.
The noble Baroness said that we could not provide these services on current funding streams. Of course, “we are not gonna”. We have said that we will put in £3 billion over the course of this Parliament and I am sorry that she does not feel that that is a lot of money. It think it is very significant, and substantially more than bus already gets. So perhaps I can delve into some of the topics that were brought up and I am sure we will have the opportunity to do a bit more.
The noble Baroness, for example, said that there was no expertise in local authorities to develop the plans for buses. However, we have committed £25 million in the coming financial year to ensure that local authorities have access to the skills and capabilities that they need. We will be setting up a bus centre of excellence where people can share their learning on how to set up enhanced partnerships, on how to do franchising and on how to get the most from their bus services improvement plans. All that is in the strategy if she cares to have a look.
An important thing to understand is that we want to break the vicious circle for buses. What has happened in the past has meant that congestion has increased, buses have got slower, journey reliability has gone down and, therefore, passenger numbers have declined. We have to break that. By encouraging these bus service improvement plans, which will set out ambitious plans from local authorities for bus lanes in their area, we are trying to break that vicious circle. Therefore, not only will people know when a bus is going to turn up, they will be able to get on it and know when they are going to arrive. That will lead to a greater number of people using buses and higher demand, which will also result in lower fares.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about enhanced partnerships on franchising. It is the case that mayoral combined authorities can currently franchise, and other local transport authorities can ask the Secretary of State whether they can franchise. Given that franchising takes a lot of time, we would ask that an enhanced partnership is put in place in the meantime. However, the strategy is about giving local control over buses to local authorities, and it will be for the local authority to decide, in collaboration with operators, what type of statutory arrangement it wants to pursue. Of course, the decision by the Secretary of State will depend on the case put forward by the local authority.
On the question of marketing, it is important to remember, in the first instance, that we must get people back on to public transport as a whole. Therefore, when it is safe to do so, we will ensure that the messaging includes buses. We do not want a car-led recovery.
A number of questions were raised about zero-emission buses. I am incredibly proud of where we have been able to get to. Some £50 million is available in the current year, which we hope will be invested very soon in an all-electric bus town. Then there is £120 million for next year, which we expect, combined with the £50 million, will support up to 800 zero-emission vehicles. Further details on that will be available extremely soon.
The consultation for the end of the sale of diesel vehicles is already out there—in the wild—and the end date is 11 April. The noble Baroness said that that would eat into preparation time. We are talking about five, eight, 10 or 15 years hence—I do not think that will eat into the preparation time.
The noble Baroness also mentioned reform of BSOG. It is currently a fossil fuel-driven subsidy and clearly not fit for purpose. We will reform it and consult this year on how we can incentivise the outcomes that we particularly want to see, such as environmental ones.
There is an awful lot in the bus strategy on the needs of disabled passengers. We will roll out the audiovisual announcements, backed by £1.5 million of funding for small operators. We will require every local authority to have a bus passenger charter, to ensure that disabled passengers get the services that they need. We will review the public service vehicle accessibility regulations by the end of 2023 to ensure that they meet the requirements of disabled passengers, and we will consult on improving access for wheelchair users and on priority seating.
I have much more to say about the national bus strategy, but unfortunately I am out of time.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the 20 minutes allocated to Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers. I start with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is very nice to have three minutes each for Back-Bench questions. I hope to take less than that. I start by congratulating the Minister on the publication of Bus Back Better. It is the most powerful transport policy document of recent years. I will put my hand up for on-demand autonomous buses when they come—they will be ideal for low-density south-coast towns.
My question for the Government is: to help those LTAs that are less successful, will the DfT move quickly to set up the dissemination of practical best advice? Will it ask the star performing LTAs how bus lanes were handled on shopping streets with delivery requirements; how narrow streets requiring the removal of parking were dealt with; and how fast but meaningful consultations could be carried out? These are all things that good LTAs have done well, as page 18 of the report makes clear, showing
“an average benefit-cost ratio of 4.2”
among 33 major bus schemes. The DfT knows where a lot of good practice is; it should not be hard to share it.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his warm words about the bus strategy—it is nice to have some. The noble Lord also makes a very important point: because we are giving more local control and accountability for bus services, the ability of local transport operators to put in place their bus service improvement plans will be critical. The noble Lord spoke of their need to share best practice. That is absolutely in the plan: the bus centre of excellence will combine learning from not only the Department for Transport but bus operators and the leading LTAs—which are already well down this track—and it will encourage everyone and ensure that they can move together at the same speed. We do not want what I call the recalcitrant LTAs: the people who have not loved buses as much as the Government have. My ambition is to make sure that we have no recalcitrant LTAs and that across the country everybody levels up so that we have good bus services everywhere.
The noble Lord mentioned demand-responsive transport. He will have seen the £20 million that we have put into 17 bids across the country. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned them. We published the list of 17 successful places back in early January; all of them have moved into the final stage and secured funding. Demand-responsive transport will be really good for rural areas. The noble Lord wants them to be autonomous, and so do I, but perhaps not just yet.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the documents. Unlike the spokesperson for the Liberal party, I welcome it. The fact that she has embraced so many policies that the Labour Party has advocated for so many years is entirely to her credit. More power to her elbow, say I. Has the Minister read the Prime Minister’s foreword? I know these things are traditionally written for Prime Ministers, but it is everything we have come to expect from the Prime Minister: a mixture of comedy, hyperbole and demagoguery. Talking about the bus industry it states:
“Outside London, with a few exceptions, that lesson has not been learned.”
He is comparing London to the rest of the country. As a former chairman of a major bus operator, I could have learned some lessons if we had thrown £1 billion in subsidy at buses in Birmingham over the period since deregulation, but we never had the opportunity.
Will the Minister say what happened to the £5 billion that the Prime Minister announced with suitable flair about a year ago? It has now been reduced to £3 billion. It is welcome nevertheless. How will it be distributed? Will there be proper consultation with local authorities and bus operators? Will the Minister accept my congratulations on the paper as far as it goes? Next time we take a bus trip together, which she has promised, I will see if I can sell her a few more Labour Party policies on the journey.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I think good ideas should not be party political. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, mentioned the £5 billion. If he were to read the—I would say “small print” but it was not small print—document, the £5 billion was for cycling, walking and buses, so there was £3 billion for buses and £2 billion for cycling and walking. However, the noble Lord makes a very serious point. I am delighted that the strategy is out of the door, but I am under no illusion: the hard work is about to start because we have £3 billion and we have to think about exactly how we spend it. At the moment we cannot decide that because we do not know what sort of bus service improvement plans are going to be coming forth from the local transport authorities.
The timeline looks like this: by 30 June, each transport authority will say that it is going to have either an enhanced partnership or franchising and that the bus operators are willing to take part; they will then have to work very hard indeed to prepare a bus service improvement plan by 31 October. On the basis of those bus service improvement plans and the amount of funding that is needed in order to provide the sort of revenue funding and capital funding required for those plans, the funding will be distributed. Of course, it could also be the case that bus lanes could be bolstered through a levelling up fund, so there is a lot of opportunity for local transport authorities at the moment to take buses by the scruff of the neck and bring them into the 21st century and beyond.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, I give this document a very cautious welcome because it puts a lot of good ideas forward. How they will be carried out I do not know, but we have to be aware that the motoring industry is engaged at the moment in selling young people cheap motor cars, probably end-of-the-line motor cars. It is like the way tobacco companies engage young smokers. Once you have hooked them, you go on exploiting them for the rest of their life.
The Government must make the new buses very environmentally friendly. I make a special plea that they use clean air so that in future we are not recirculating dirty air into buses, which we do now, as it will give us a lead over the Chinese if we can do that. It is important that bus priority measures are given the Government’s full authority. There will be lots of people who will try very hard to stop priority measures going in, often misguided chambers of commerce and local authorities. Priority measures are essentially because we have no choice but to deal with pollution, which is one of the biggest killers of our time. It is unseen but is steadily going on with its work of killing people. I am very pleased to see that moving traffic offences are going to be decriminalised, which will help matters no end.
The last thing I want to mention is that right at the end of the report concessionary fares get some attention. They are out of control. If the Government want an idea that may work and perhaps will not cost too much, maybe they will have to get to a situation where younger pensioners do not get a free pass but are able to purchase a concessionary pass. Older or disabled pensioners will still be able to get free passes. A lot of people who use the concessionary fares could very well afford to make some subscription to a better service.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his somewhat lengthy contribution.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Other noble Lords are saying very lengthy; I would not say so.
I might pick out something of great importance that the noble Lord said about bus priority, because it is a big issue. The Government support local authorities putting in careful bus priority measures because, as I said, it would break the vicious cycle. Perhaps the noble Lord did not see it, but the Government are going to update the statutory traffic management guidance. It will make sure that local authorities promote bus reliability as part of the highways authority network management duty. That will be a really helpful way to put a rod in the back of some of the recalcitrant LTAs and help them to put things into place. The noble Lord also noted that we are going to commence Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act, which, again, I think will be helpful.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the bus strategy for cleaner, greener, better buses and bus services. The regulations on the information on accessibility are not due to be done until summer 2022. Would my noble friend consider a more ambitious timetable? Similarly, when it comes to the physical nature of vehicles at the end of 2023, might the Government consider a more ambitious timetable there too? Finally, in terms of accessibility for disabled people and older people, what innovations are being deployed? There is much that can be done. Technology can play a brilliant part, both in terms of the vehicles themselves and in delivering inclusive buses and bus services for all.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his warm welcome of the strategy. I note that he has been a doughty campaigner on the issue of audio-visual announcements on buses. I feel very sorry that we have not been able to bring it in sooner. I will take the question back to the department to see whether we can do the regulations earlier than summer 2022. I do not want to overpromise and underdeliver, but I can definitely ask. I will also do the same on the accessible vehicle regulations.
My noble friend mentioned innovation when it comes to disabled people and, indeed, everybody, travelling. It is important to remember is that it is the bus operators who are the innovators in the industry. They are the ones who know their customers and they often go far beyond the regulations that government puts in place. They do it because it is the right thing to do; it is what their passengers want. That is why I am delighted that operators will still be at the heart of what we are doing with buses. I am sure that they will innovate in the way that I expect.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, for the last four or five years, we have had a Government who have produced lots of very black and white-looking documents, usually a thousand pages long and full of lots of impenetrable words. Suddenly we are into glossy brochures again. I am not complaining, because I can cut the glossy brochures out and pin them on the wall for my grandson.
In the 20 years that I have been a Member of this House I have accumulated a vast number of glossy brochures produced by Governments. When I look at them now, most of them bear little relationship to what actually happened. I welcome the fact that the Government have noticed buses again. I welcome the passion that we have seen from my noble friend Lady Randerson and from the Minister. If buses are the modern passion of the House of Lords, that is great, but will the Minister accept that a national bus strategy can work only if it consists of myriad local bus strategies which must be in the hands of local people who know what is needed and what is wanted?
Will the Minister also accept that, while the document says that people want simpler fares and more routes and services, in many areas they also want much cheaper fares? I think noble Lords would be astonished at how much it costs to take a simple, short ride on a bus in many parts of the country outside big cities. It is okay if you are in a metropolitan area where it is subsidised—it is nirvana in London—but out in the sticks it is very expensive indeed and people will not leave their cars unless it is much cheaper.
Finally, will the Minister accept that, in addition to the concentration on cities and rural areas, a huge number of important bus services serve ordinary small and medium-sized towns? Towns are the most difficult places in which to provide frequent, cheap services because they do not have the demand of cities, and there is not the requirement for at least a skeleton service in rural areas that people recognise. Towns—the places in between and on the edge—are the places that this strategy will succeed or fail by.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord is right, and in the middle of his contribution he basically set out what is in the strategy: giving control and accountability to local authorities. He made some important points about services and how different areas will have different needs. One of the bits buried in the bus strategy is how local authorities will be expected to set up something like a bus advisory board or equivalent, which will take into account the views of local people, services and businesses—everyone who has an interest in making the network run as well as it can. Even though all those people will put in their contributions, it will be up to the local authority to have the skills and capabilities to meet those needs and devise the sort of network that will be required. That bit is probably quite challenging, which is why we have put quite a lot of money into it.
Alongside listening to people and putting the network into place, it will depend on the situation; the strategy is not focused on rural and urban—it is focused on everywhere, as we recognise that every single place will be different. In some areas, turn-up-and-go on bus corridors will be perfectly acceptable and we will be able to put in more services in the evenings and at weekends. The other area that concerns me, to be honest, is cross-border services: how we make sure that longer services between two local transport authorities continue to function in an effective fashion. I recognise there is a lot to do. The Government stand ready to provide guidance, advice and support to local authorities as they take this challenge and run with it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I warmly welcome the bus strategy and congratulate the department and my noble friend on the document they have brought forward. I particularly welcome the rural mobility fund and place on record that it will be a huge help in rural areas, for much the same reason that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, gave. It will ease parking in market towns such as Thirsk and Northallerton if people can access a bus.
I also welcome the concessionary fares funding. The document states on the very last page:
“While the bus market is recovering, we will still look to Local Authorities to contribute to the operation of their bus markets, though to a decreasing extent.”
It refers in an earlier passage to the national concessionary travel scheme. I want to place on record that, while the Labour Government came forward with the scheme, which was very welcome in rural areas, neither for the initial scheme when it was local nor for the extended scheme when it became national were sufficient funds made available to the local transport authorities. From which budget, in these times when local authority budgets have been particularly stretched, does my noble friend think the money for concessionary fares will come?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness raises an important point which is directly relevant to the support we are providing to the bus sector at the moment. Noble Lords will be aware that we have asked local authorities to continue funding bus operators in terms of their concessionary fares contributions at the same level as they did previously, even though the demand is significantly reduced. The vast majority are still doing that, and it is very welcome—indeed, essential —for their local areas. That funding comes from MHCLG; it is within the budgets that local authorities set and the funding streams they receive.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, all questions have now been asked.
Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:08 - Division conducted remotely on Baroness Jones of Whitchurch’s Motion - Ayes: 252 / Noes: 274 - Motion disagreed.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House regrets that the Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/158) do not provide a basis for significantly reducing the amount of peatland burning that occurs in England, in part because the restrictions extend only to certain areas of deep peat; notes that while there are appropriate uses of peat burning, the protection of peatland ecosystems should be prioritised to provide a haven for wildlife, the safe storage of carbon, and the prevention of natural catastrophes such as flooding and wildfires; and therefore calls on Her Majesty’s Government to reconsider its approach to restricting the burning of peatland ahead of the season’s commencement on 1 October.
Relevant document: 48th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am moving this Motion to Regret over the Government’s so far inadequate response to restoring our historic and precious blanket bog wetlands to their original native state, thereby improving conservation and reaping the huge benefits that could have been brought to achieving our net-zero climate change targets. As such, we contend that the SI should be reconsidered and strengthened, on the grounds that it does not achieve its stated policy objectives.
I thank the RSPB and Wildlife and Countryside Link for their helpful briefings on these issues. Our arguments have been strengthened by the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and today by the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which has reported the SI as requiring elucidation, as well as for defective drafting.
I will first say something about the broader issues raised by this SI. We are blessed in the UK with 13% of the world’s blanket bog. It is hugely important to our ecosystem, attracting important species, such as golden plovers and sundew plants, as well as nurturing the development of sphagnum moss species. However, as the Explanatory Memorandum points out, much of it has been degraded and is in a poor state, with less than 12% in a near natural state. It is a threatened habitat, which is why the Government, under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, have a responsibility to protect this habitat type and return it to a favourable conservation status.
In the UK, we are fortunate to have a particularly rich level of peat, which stores some 3.2 billion tonnes of carbon and can offset our carbon emissions to help us meet our climate change obligations. Sadly, this crucial natural resource is being eroded by habitat encroachment, artificial drainage, the excavation of peat for horticulture and, most damagingly, the burning of peatlands. This is primarily carried out to create better conditions for breeding grouse for the shooting industry. Regrettably, this has a reverse effect on its role as a carbon store, releasing around 260,000 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.
It is now widely accepted that action to control peat burning is necessary. The Committee on Climate Change, in its report on land use in January last year, said:
“Burning heather promotes young shoots, which grouse feed on, but it is highly damaging to the peat, and to the range of environmental benefits that well-functioning peat can deliver (e.g. water quality, biodiversity and carbon sequestration). A voluntary cessation of this activity by landowners has not produced the desired outcome so the practice should be banned across the UK with immediate effect.”
In their 25-year environment plan, published in January 2018, the Government promised
“a new ambitious framework for peat restoration in England.”
They committed to publishing an England peat strategy later in 2018, and to delivering it, so, we might ask, where is that strategy? It is already nearly four years since the proposal first appeared in the 25-year environment plan, and as we know, even a strategy is no guarantee of action.
This brings me to the specific wording of the SI. I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for drawing it to the attention of the House. In particular, the committee points out that much of the detail of how licences to burn will be granted will be set out in guidance, which gives the Secretary of State huge discretion in implementation before the start of the burning season on 1 October.
The committee also points out that the department should have been much clearer about the size of the areas of peatland that will be affected by a ban, on which the SI is hugely constrained. It only applies to upland peat in sites of special scientific interest, special areas of conservation or special protection areas. As Wildlife and Countryside Link has calculated, this equates only to about 109,000 hectares in England out of a total of 355,000 hectares. This is a maximum of 30% of the total of upland peat.
The scope of the ban is further limited by the series of exemptions which would allow burning to continue, for example: for conservation, enhancement or management of the natural environment; to reduce the risk of wildfire; or because the land is rocky or on a slope. The end-result of these exemptions is that, in large swathes of upland blanket bog, burning will take place much as before. We will also miss a golden opportunity to expand the use of blanket bogs to mitigate flood risk and improve water quality.
Turning to the arguments around wildfires, I believe that we are in danger of making the wrong link between cause and effect. Burning is only done to regrow the easily flammable heather vegetation. When you burn it, you get locked into an ever-smaller cycle of the heather growing back quicker and thicker. Ultimately, the most effective way to address the threat of wildfires is not to allow localised burning but to return the landscape to a state less like moorland and more like actual bog, full of muddy pools of water, which clearly do not catch fire. We should also acknowledge that most wildfires in the UK are not spontaneous but caused by accident or thoughtlessness on the part of the public or, indeed, arson. And controlled burns in themselves can become out-of-control wildfires.
Finally, I shall address the concerns about the need for greater scientific research into the management of peatlands. Anyone reading the Committee on Climate Change report will see that its recommendations are absolutely predicated on the latest national and international science. Furthermore, the recent report from Natural England, which has once again reviewed the latest science, concluded that burning on upland peatland had a largely negative impact on the flora, fauna, carbon and water. In response to an Oral Question on 14 October, the Minister said Defra had kept abreast of all the latest scientific evidence, and
“overall, the evidence shows that the burning on blanket bog is detrimental as it moves the bog away from its original wet state and risks vulnerable peat bogs being converted to drier heathland habitat.”—[Official Report, 14/10/20; col. 1087.]
We agree with this analysis, which I hope gives noble Lords some comfort.
I know the Minister cares about these issues; I hope he will listen to our concerns about the limitations of this SI and accept the need to revisit it. I also hope that he is able to address the specific concerns of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. If he is unable to give the reassurance that we seek, I give notice that I am minded to test the opinion of the House on this issue. I look forward to his response.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for tabling this regret Motion and moving it so effectively. At the same time, I regret the way important legislation is being rushed through half-baked. Thank goodness that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is not similarly constrained to two minutes. It has rightly condemned this SI for defective drafting. I also thank the Wildlife and Countryside Link for its invaluable work in helping to draw out the elucidation needed to make sense of this SI.
My contribution will concentrate on the mismatch between the Government’s words and their deeds. I shall leave it to other contributors to query the wisdom of making legislation before thinking through the guidance that will inform it.
I welcome the inclusion of nature-based solutions in tackling the climate emergency as one of the five themes of COP 26. However, it begs the question: why make an SI to protect peatlands that leaves 60% unprotected? Does the Minister accept that the optics of justifying this on the grounds of “jam tomorrow” are poor?
Secondly, the Minister has said that
“the UK will use our presidency of COP 26 to persuade other countries to put nature at the heart of their climate response.”
How can those words be reconciled with the inevitable live-time pictures of burning peatland during the November peak burning season that will surely, as night follows day, accompany them during COP 26?
Lastly, will the Minister restate the Government’s response to the Wildlife and Countryside Link’s first briefing, which states that,
“exemptions from the prohibition of burning in protected areas should only apply when burning can be shown to be part of either a restoration plan or wildfire management plan.”
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my family’s interest in managing an area of blanket bog in Scotland which is now in a peat restoration programme.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on the need for more research, but I am afraid I do not agree with some of her other points. The guarded tone of this measure is appropriate but, as the noble Baroness said, until the promised guidance is issued, it cannot be of much comfort.
In high rainfall areas, such as the one in which I live, any burning is totally site-specific and governed by the wind and weather on the day in question. Given all this trouble, it is easy to wonder why we should bother with burning.
By way of illustration, on National Trust land on the Isle of Arran, near my home, an ecologically oriented policy of no burning was adopted for a number of years, until someone on a day out dropped a match, which resulted in a fire which burned for two or three days.
There have been commercial incentives for installing fire breaks. If these activities are being limited, the guidance will have to consider what incentives there will be for this necessary work. My experience with blanket bog is that, provided a controlled fire is handled in the right way, it will consume the surface vegetation and only scorch the waterlogged peat moss, thus sparing the peat. It is a very exact science. Licensing will have to take account of all this practical experience. So I give this measure only a guarded welcome until we have more detail.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Botham, is not participating in this debate, so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab) [V]
My Lords, first I want to thank and congratulate my noble friend Lady Jones on ensuring we have this important opportunity to question the Minister on these flawed regulations.
We have already heard that the main problems with this SI, beyond its drafting, are that it is limited in scope to only 40% of upland peat in England and that it is also undermined by loosely worded exemptions, so that the protection for the 40% can be revoked by licence, with little clarity on how exemptions from the prohibition on burning would apply.
I would like to use my limited time to ask the Minister a few questions. First, given that 86% of our upland peat is currently classed as being in poor condition, how will Defra measure the impact of these regulations in correcting this problem for these globally rare ecosystems? Secondly, does the Minister agree with the RSPB that the only long-term way to reduce the risk of wildfires is to re-wet and restore peat to its natural “boggy” state? If so, how will burning heather help that process? Thirdly, how will the department measure whether these regulations reduce burning—the stated policy intent—and will he ensure that data is published to Parliament on an annual basis on that progress? Finally, will he resist vested interests who resist a ban on rotational burning, and agree with the 60% of the British public who want a burning ban on all of England’s peatland?
These are deeply flawed regulations. I look forward to the Minister’s answers and strongly support the noble Baroness’s Motion.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about where she wants to get to, but I think that her regret Motion is like driving down the wrong side of a motorway.
The regret Motion talks about peatland, but the statutory instrument does not even mention it. Peatland is not defined anywhere, but what definitions one can find of it do include peat. Nobody is talking about burning peat; they are talking only about the vegetation on top of the peat.
The regret Motion goes on to say that peatland should be “a haven for wildlife”. It can be a haven for wildlife only if it is properly managed. I have lived on blanket bog, or beside blanket bog, for many years in my life, and the best biodiversity was found on the managed peatlands.
My main concern is wildfires. One can talk about the amount of carbon that is produced from cool burns—managed burns—on hillsides, but they produce about 1% to 5% of the carbon emissions from peatlands; 95% of the carbon emissions come from lowland peat, which is not covered by this statutory instrument.
I want to talk about the Flow Country in Caithness and Sutherland, which is the biggest blanket bog in Europe. In 2019, there was a fire there. Every day that fire burned, and it burned for six days, it doubled the amount of Scotland’s CO2 emissions—700,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent—because it got out of control. With climate change advancing, we need to manage peat so that we minimise the chance of any fire spreading.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, where I live, we are surrounded by moors. I would describe them as peat moors; a lot of them are heather moors and a lot are grass moors. Every year, there are fires on them. Some of them are managed fires on the grouse-shooting estates. Others are unmanaged fires caused by people who accidentally drop cigarette ends, or whatever, or have barbeques. It is not quite central to this statutory instrument, but I have asked questions of the Government previously about banning people from having barbeques on open country of this kind. The answer I get is that it is up to local authorities. The problem is that many of these moors are, by definition, the places where local authority boundaries are drawn, because they are up on the hills and the tops between the valleys, and getting local authorities together to organise jointly on this is not easy. I will just make that point.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has written a pretty damning report on the SI that has been presented. I think it is another example of how regrettable it is, with the way that parliamentary business is being organised at the moment, that there has not been the opportunity or the time available for the Government and the Joint Committee to discuss it and negotiate properly in the way in which it always happened in the past. We are told by the Government that they do not agree with it; the department says that it does not agree with it. That is not satisfactory—they should be having a discussion, getting together and sorting it out before it comes here. It is very unsatisfactory for us to have a statutory instrument where the JCSI is basically saying, “Don’t pass it”.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for tabling this regret Motion. I wonder what proportion of the population knows that, globally, peat holds twice as much carbon as all the world’s forests, and that peatlands, not forests, are the UK’s biggest carbon sink? I certainly did not until this week.
We understand from Bill Gates that the entire world emits 51 billion tonnes of CO2 each year, and this number needs to drop to zero by 2050 to prevent catastrophe. This helps us put the contribution of peat in perspective, in my view. We should surely treasure the fact that the UK’s peatlands store around 3.2 billion tonnes of carbon. While reducing CO2 emissions in the production of steel, plastics and cement will involve vast investments in new technologies, all we have to do with our peat is to leave it alone. As the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, said, it needs very careful precision work to burn the surface and not burn the peat.
At this point, I must acknowledge the Government’s regulations which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has explained, do go a little way to reduce peat burning—but why is the scope of the regulatory controls so very limited? Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government have come under pressure from the grouse-shooting industry or, indeed, from landowners, to limit the controls over peat burning? I hope the Minister will respond to that question.
The very informative briefing from Wildlife and Countryside Link makes the interesting connection between peat burning and cars, suggesting that removing upland peatland burning would be as beneficial in tackling CO2 levels as removing 175,000 cars from the road. Link also gave us evidence of the strong public support for a peat-burning ban, with 60% support and only 3% against. I very much support the two amendments to the regulations proposed by Link: first, that the restriction of the controls over peat burning to SSSIs, SACs or SPIs should be dropped; and, secondly, that the exemptions within those areas should be tightened to ensure that peat burning really is limited to that absolutely necessary for safety purposes. If the Government will accept those amendments, I would welcome the regulations as a very helpful step forward.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am sorry that I am unable to support my noble friend Lady Jones. The Government have been caught in the middle between those who want all rotational burning stopped and those who believe that no additional restrictions are necessary or supported by the most recent research, and I think they have produced a not unreasonable compromise.
I will offer a caution: living in Exmoor national park, I have seen the adverse consequences of the over-restriction of rotational burning. Swaling, as we call it, has been used since medieval times over large areas of moorland to encourage the growth of young heather and grasses to the benefit of grazing animals, both domestic and wild, and evidence shows that curlews and golden plover benefit from it too—not grouse, because there are none. In the 1980s, SSSIs and stricter controls on both the timing and extent of the burns were introduced. It is now clear that the amount of burning that took place afterwards was wholly insufficient.
Heather needs to be cleared, ideally every 20 years or so. If not, as we have seen, there are large expanses of over-mature plants, a lot of them dead or dying. Heather and mosses have now dramatically declined in some areas, and instead Molinia grass, bracken, gorse and scrub have taken over. So have ticks, Lyme disease and tick-borne diseases of livestock. There have also been damaging wildfires, which, unlike carefully controlled and limited swaling, are not superficial but burn hot and deep, with very serious carbon-loss consequences. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, pointed to the major one in Scotland.
There is plenty of peat on Exmoor but no blanket bog, so these regulations will not affect us, but calls for further restrictions may well. On the evidence I have seen, the consequences would not be good for wildlife, carbon capture or those who love the heather-clad moors.
Viscount Ridley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Moorland Association and as the owner of moorland in County Durham. I shall address the issue of emissions. There is good scientific reason to think that the SI to restrict burning might actually increase net CO2 emissions—some noble Lords may vote this evening to regret that possibility—and here is why: cool heather burning generates only a very small percentage of the emissions from heather moorland, as we have heard, and it enhances the sequestration of carbon. Recent scientific research by the University of York has revealed that, if you cut heather, it releases high levels of CO2 as it rots. By contrast, burning turns some of it into inner charcoal, which does not rot but remains in the ground for many decades. More importantly, heather burning prevents the shading out of sphagnum mosses, which are by far the largest sequestrators of carbon in blanket bogs. This has been demonstrated by experiments, but it is also obvious to anybody who has spent time examining the vegetation on moorland.
I ask my noble friends, and I also ask the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to recognise the fact that grouse moor managers have already delivered 25% of the Government’s 2025 peatland restoration target for the whole of England. They have blocked 4,000 miles of drains over 20 years and restored at least 66,000 acres of bare peat. This work is saving 60,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year. Peat restoration partnerships are an effective example of stakeholders working together. Blocking agricultural drains resulted in the North Pennines area of outstanding natural beauty peatland programme being award the climate change award at the Durham Environment Awards 2015. Its management plan recognised that sound grouse moor management can contribute significantly to the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty. So will the Minister agree to keep the science under review, so we can find out whether this burning restriction actually increases emissions from peatland, as is entirely possible?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, is not participating in this debate, so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
Peat is an extremely valuable resource in terms of carbon, as has been noted by several other noble Lords. I ask the Minister, although it is not strictly in accordance with these regulations, what are the Government doing to prevent so much peat being used in horticulture? There is no doubt that much of our peat reserves are being used in that respect. I have a fairly open mind on the question of whether peat burning is a good thing or not, but I too would like to see further scientific evidence to prove what the best thing is.
Lord Mancroft (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Uplands Partnership, which comprises leading countryside organisations, has produced Peatland Protection the Science: four key reports that collate the latest scientific findings. This dossier is highly significant in that it strongly recommends that any policy discussions should take cognisance of the latest research. In summary, the findings indicate that, first, heather burning can have a positive effect on carbon capture and, secondly, that burning does not cause water discolouration. Environmentally important sphagnum moss recovers quickly from low-severity cool burning. The loss of controlled burning in the United States led to a severe decline in birdlife and an increase in damaging wildfires. Greenhouse gas emissions from controlled burning are relatively insignificant compared with emissions from wildlife, or indeed severely degraded lowland peatlands used for agriculture.
It is true that the evidence is uncertain on these questions, which is why continued research is vital. The studies on which Natural England has relied are mostly short-term studies, and they do not give the full picture. Longer-term studies by Andreas Heinemeyer at York University point to very different results. Will the Minister confirm that an exemption must be made to allow these studies to continue? Will he further comment on the extreme reluctance of Natural England to revisit the science on this question, which is now very out of date? A review of research from 2013 to 2020, carried out by respected independent scientists, has now found that the conclusions of the previous science are out of date and could not be regarded as a safe basis for policy-making today. This is particularly important given that the Government are currently developing a strategy for peatland.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, on tabling the Motion because the new regulations will not adequately protect peatland or reduce UK carbon emissions through a partial ban. There is a definite need for action to control peat burning, which is required as a matter of priority. That fact has been raised by the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee as well as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Further to that, Wildlife and Countryside Link has been particularly instructive in relation to this issue. It believes that this statutory instrument will not achieve its policy objectives of protecting upland peat habitats from the impact of burning; that it is limited in its scope in terms of partial burning and only on designated sites; that the SI is undermined by loosely-worded exemptions; and that the SI’s weaknesses undermine the Government’s advocacy of nature-based solutions to climate change. We cannot be a champion of nature-based solutions to climate change while at the same time allowing our nature carbon store to be burned.
There is strong public support, around 60%, for a comprehensive ban, because the public recognise the importance and value of upland peat. They wish to see its potential as a nature-based solution to climate change realised, and they support a comprehensive burning ban to deliver that. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that this legislation is reworked and that he comes back to your Lordships’ House with a new statutory instrument with a comprehensive ban?
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I declare that I do not have an interest because, sadly, I do not own a grouse moor. It seems to me that the Motion is prompted more by an antipathy towards grouse shooting than by care for biodiversity. Nearly two years ago a university friend of mine, who is a parish priest in a rather challenging part of Bradford, asked me to join him on the Pennine Way. We walked for three days from Marsden Moor to Malham across a lot of peat moorland. We saw golden plover and redshanks and, at some stages, fabulous numbers of curlew and lapwing. Where we saw them, there were no crows, because if there were any crows then there were no curlew or lapwing. That is because where there is predator control, on keepered moors, wildlife flourishes. If noble Lords do not believe me, they should go to see for themselves.
The same applies to heather burning. Controlled heather burning lets invertebrates and, indeed, plants flourish. It was a very dry spring. When we were walking, there had just been the most terrible fire at Marsden; seven square kilometres had been destroyed on Marsden Moor. Ilkley Moor nearby was burning and was being devastated as we walked.
Those severe fires in dry weather, burning into the peat and getting it burning, were very difficult to put out. However, they were not started by cool heather burning: Marsden was started by a discarded barbecue and Ilkley by arson. Wildfires spread especially in dry, old, shrubby heather, which controlled cool burning gets rid of. How many controlled fires have been undertaken by keepers or estates and got out of control in the past 10 years, and how many acres of peat were thereby destroyed? At the same time, how many wildfires on moorland have there been, started either by arson or by accident, and how many acres of peatland were thereby destroyed?
I would like to see what exactly the problem is that the regulations seek to address. If, in reality, arson and wanton carelessness are the causes of the destruction of peat moorland, surely we should be looking at them rather than at controlled cool burning.
Lord Benyon (Con) [V]
I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register. As Environment Minister, I was often berated by upland managers who complained that they were being prevented from rewetting their moorland—but then, their mantra was “The wetter the better”—and there was much frustration with Natural England at the time about how long it took to get permission to block grips and drains. Therefore, I do not recognise this idea that upland managers are somehow trying to dry out their moorland.
The areas of upland that we are talking about are, by and large, extraordinarily rich in biodiversity. Indeed, many of them are exceeding their biodiversity action plan targets by huge margins. The area where managed cool burns take place are almost the only places where one can go to see proper populations of rare curlew and other waders, as has been proved by research carried out by Fletcher et al.
The message has to be that we do not want to get this wrong; it is too important. Upland managers would be offended to see this regret Motion mention peat burning. The only peat that is burned is from the 32,000 wildfires that we have every year, some of which get into the peat, as we have heard, doing huge damage. That damage could be exacerbated by a ban that allowed fuel loads to increase and the increasing risk of devastating wildfires through climate change. Fire and rescue services need to be listened to here.
As with so many issues, the science is varied and there is certainly increasing evidence of the value of cool burning for the restoration, protection and enhancement of upland peat. The truth is that neither side is entirely happy on this matter, which could mean that the Government might be getting it about right. I was pleased to hear the RSPB say earlier in the week that the UK was edging towards being a world leader in restoring upland peatlands. That is welcome news but if there were to be a blanket ban on any burning, we would lose the mosaic of natural habitats that are so necessary to the biodiversity of these precious landscapes and seriously put at risk many hectares of uplands to wildfires that will release vast amounts of carbon.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for bringing forward this Motion, which I support. I will not repeat what other noble Lords have said about the ecosystem services provided by upland peat, such as flood protection, water purification and carbon storage, as well as its importance for rare species such as sphagnum imbricatum.
We are all critical of Brazil’s burning of the Amazon, but we are doing something similar to one of our most precious habitats of global importance. As other noble Lords have said, nearly all our upland peat bog has been damaged or destroyed by a combination of burning, overgrazing, drainage and pollution. The Climate Change Committee concludes that climate change will increase the rate of degradation and carbon loss from peat bogs and that only by restoring them to good condition now will we be able to benefit from their ecosystem services in the future.
Can the Minister say whether the proposed regulations follow the Climate Change Committee’s advice and, if not, why not? Some noble Lords have argued that burning is actually good for carbon storage. There is, indeed, dispute about the precise effects. I do not have time to go into the literature but let me quote Professor Peter Smith of Aberdeen University, arguably the UK’s leading expert on soil carbon. He states:
“While there might be some merit in the suggestions that peatland burning could lead to a longer term carbon storage, we know that peatland burning does lead to additional carbon release now. At a time when we should be focused on restoring peatlands to help meet our net zero by 2050 climate change targets, allowing peatland burning does not seem very compatible from a climate change perspective.”
Does the Minister agree with Professor Smith?
Lord Marland (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am afraid that we are in danger of armchair meddling in an ancient tradition that is of benefit to our countryside. This is part of a continued onslaught on rural Britain and its management. It is not as if we are not living in a green and pleasant land. As my noble friend Lord Ridley says, many initiatives are taking place to maintain the ecosystem that is upland moorland.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, clearly enunciates the cost if we do not continue this type of activity and what happens to flora and fauna if they are not managed properly by burning. I ask my noble friend the Minister to update the research, which is changing the whole time, and work further with the Moorland Association, which, after all, has greater knowledge of these matters than most in coming up with a pathway for the benefit of all concerned.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register. I am also a member of the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust and the APPG.
Burning benefits many rare species. The mosaic of high and low vegetation that it creates, with mosses, grasses, rushes and flowers thriving alongside heather, is a much richer habitat than wall-to-wall heather. Curlew and golden plover benefit especially from this form of habitat management. So do red grouse, Britain’s most unique bird and a huge conservation success story in only those areas where grouse shooting occurs.
The Eurasian curlew is the bird of greatest conservation concern in the United Kingdom because its international stronghold is the British Isles. One-quarter of all the world’s population breeds in this country. Its stronghold in the British Isles is grouse-moors. It has become very scarce in the meadows and pastures of southern England, and in the hills of Wales, Devon and the English Lake District. Despite heroic efforts, the number of pairs of breeding curlews in the RSPB’s reserve at Lake Vyrnwy in Wales went from three in 2003 to—guess what?—three in 2015. In other parts of Wales, after management for grouse ceased, golden plover numbers fell by 90%; curlew, by 79%; black grouse, by 78%; and lapwing, by 100%. These are scientific facts.
Curlew, redshank, lapwing and golden plover live at five times the density on managed grouse-moors as on unmanaged moorland, and have three times the breeding success. Over the past 20 years, merlin numbers have doubled on grouse-moors, while halving elsewhere. In 2020, there were 19 successful hen harrier nests in England, 12 of which were on managed grouse-moors. Some 60 chicks fledged—a number not seen for at least a century. I welcome these regulations; they are a sensible compromise.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the UKCEH and a lowland farmer. No one is trying to burn peat. Fire prevention in peat is, in fact, an objective of a cool burn. On a managed burn, the fire skims across the vegetation, not affecting the winter sodden peat. Cool burns happen every 15 to 25 years, creating a mosaic of localised firebreaks and habitats for golden plover, grouse, curlew, black cocks, ptarmigan, lapwing et cetera —all incredibly important species.
Where the cool burn is recent, chicks scratch at seeds and invertebrates encouraged by the burn, then regrowing heather, mosses and sedges provide more seeds and crane flies. Adjacent to that, you have mature heather providing weather protection for all. However, one thing to avoid is miles of two-foot-high leggy heather, in which biodiversity is limited and summer fires can explode.
Meanwhile, the research is pretty contradictory. In spite of the biodiversity benefits, you get a release of carbon in a cool burn, but some believe that this is neutralised by reinvigorated growth over the following seasons. Others say that, over the years, there has been a gradual loss of carbon. More long-term research is needed. Meanwhile, is the alternative of mowed heather better for biodiversity and firebreaks or not? Again, research is needed. Most importantly, we need more accurate data on the current condition of all our upland peatlands as a template for the future—namely, how extensive they are, how deep and what sort of condition they are in. Every site will be different.
One thing is sure: one out-of-control summer fire, where the peat itself burns for days, is more damaging to our environment and climate than anything else we can do. We must not let that happen by producing simple answers to a complex problem.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, the regret Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, is factually wrong. I am surprised that she was allowed to table it because the statutory instrument does not relate to peat burning; it relates to the rotational burning of heather and grass. This is not a trivial point. The Motion talks about “peatland burning” and “peat burning”. It seems to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the House. I trust that your Lordships will reject such an inaccurate and loaded Motion.
The distinction between heather and peat burning is crucial. Heather burning is carried out, among other purposes, to protect peat from being burned. It significantly reduces the risk of wildfires and is the best way to maximise biodiversity, from insects to reptiles and mammals to birds, by providing the full range of habitats that they require. The cool burning of heather, done in winter, does not significantly affect the moss and litter layer beneath the heather, as shown by the Mars bar test.
The new regulations have already led to an increase in cutting, as a substitute for burning, in large areas of blanket-bog moorland, in anticipation of their coming into force. Aside from the fact that cutting is not possible on rocky or steep ground, it is a less effective method of ensuring renewed, healthy heather and grass growth. The brush left behind is a wildfire risk, and other unintended consequences include the fact that, as it rots, it releases high levels of carbon dioxide and phosphorus—as shown by the recent research by the University of York, referred to by my noble friend Lord Ridley. High phosphorous loading in reservoirs can lead to toxic algal blooms and taste and odour problems in drinking water. At least the statutory instrument allows some sensible and pragmatic exceptions to the new restrictions.
I look forward to the Minister’s reply to this debate.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, made some interesting points there. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, told us that 13% of the world’s blanket bogs are here in the UK. That is a pretty amazing figure, given how relatively small that area is in this country. As such, it is clearly important that we have this debate and consider the dangers of burning.
Living on a farm surrounded by a shoot, I want to argue for an alliance between ecologists and landowners; I think that it is possible. For centuries, farmers here have burned or laid low bracken and areas like that to help the wildlife we have been hearing about to prosper. I draw particular attention to the comments of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, because we need information from people who have direct experience. Let us not forget that, biblically, fire purifies and can allow plants to grow. I have seen extraordinary examples of that in Australia.
I have taken from this interesting debate the fact that, if we can agree to limit—and somehow do so —surface material to protect the peat bog, we should be able to make progress. I encourage the Minister, who cares passionately about these matters, to see whether he can draw these two sides together in that way. I wish him the best of British luck.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I call the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich. Lord McColl? We can see you, but, regrettably, we cannot hear you. We will move on to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for this Motion, but I begin my two minutes by regretting that it is only a Motion to Regret. This House should be acting like an old-fashioned movie schoolmaster—that is, theatrically tearing up the Government’s homework, throwing it back in their face and saying, “Do it again, and do a proper job this time”.
This statutory instrument is a tiny nod to the public desire to end the disastrous management of land for driven grouse shooting. It is clear that, behind closed doors, the Government are still sitting around in comfortable armchairs, whisky glasses in hand, guffawing loudly and toasting their shooting mates—which, of course, means toasting themselves.
A few benefit from this land management; the rest of us, in the UK and around the world, pay. Whichever way you turn, as on any moor in the Peak District National Park, there is destruction. Look north, and this statutory instrument shows just how little this Government actually gets that this is a climate emergency: they are prepared to allow the driven grouse shooting industry to set fire to the planet—literally. Some say, “Oh, it’s protecting 40% of upland peatlands”. Yes, but it is leaving 60%, or 213,000 hectares, for the shooting industry’s convenience.
Look south, and the regulation means that, in one of the worst countries for nature on this planet, many millions more mammals, reptiles and insects will die a fiery death so that—the industry hopes—there will be a few more grouse to lumber before the guns on the Inglorious Twelfth.
Look east, and this regulation shows utter contempt for the people who have to live nearby and suffer the air pollution in a country where tens of thousands of people die prematurely every year as a result of it. Look west, and the employment in ecotourism and biodiversity management that could come from flourishing uplands, soaring eagles and dancing hen harriers is denied to communities that desperately need it by a criminal industry linked to the illegal slaughter of raptors.
Our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee describes this regulation as confusing and “difficult to assess”. That is obviously deliberate. This is a disgraceful abdication of government responsibility and the obfuscation demonstrates that the Government know it.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a council member of the RSPB as well as my other environmental interests. These regulations have been a rather long time in coming forward. Without seeming to be too mealy-mouthed, quite frankly, they are disappointing, to say the least. I welcome them as far as they go, but they needed to be more wide-ranging. As my noble friend Lord Benyon said, the real answer to this is to ensure that the wetlands are restored to their wet state. Wetting will reduce heather growth and increase sphagnum growth. Increased wetting will also reduce the effect of wildfires. My disappointment with these restrictions is that they extend to a very limited number of areas only and even then there are potential exclusions from the banning of burning. Blanket bogs are an incredible natural ecosystem, as I think we all agree. They must be restored to their natural state. I fear we cannot do this with such a limited designation. If this ban is justifiable on SSSIs because it is beneficial, why not elsewhere?
Several noble Lords have mentioned that burning helps with the breeding success of wildlife, notably waders. However, I believe that such success is more a result of active predator control in those areas, as my noble friend Lord Robathan, observed. When it is done legally I have no great objection to it, but what I have a huge objection to is the totally illegal persecution of birds of prey which is more akin to the Victorian era, but those practices are still prevalent in pockets of our uplands. I add that those practices besmirch the reputation of the many gamekeepers who do not flout the law and manage the countryside well.
Finally, I say to those who use the burning of our precious peatlands in order to maximise the number of red grouse to shoot that I have visited uplands in Norway where such burning does not occur and which sustain healthy populations of willow grouse, which, as many noble Lords will know, is the same species as the red grouse. However, this debate should not be a dispute between those for and against grouse shooting. We need more concerted efforts to restore our blanket bogs. I do not take any pleasure in saying that if the noble Baroness pushes her Motion to a vote, I will join her in regretting that these regulations are inadequate and confusing. We should be doing far more.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I join my noble friend the Duke of Montrose in suggesting that it is difficult to welcome regulations when so much of the detail is in the guidance, of which we have not had sight. It would have been helpful if the guidance could have been published at the same time as the regulations so we could see how they applied.
My starting point is the fact that it takes 200 years to create a peat bog. It is obviously a cause of celebration that the UK has 13% of the world’s blanket bog and that 40% of England’s deep peat reserve is made up of blanket bog. North Yorkshire has made its contribution to creating a new peat bog when we had the Pickering “slow the flow” pilot scheme, which included, among other measures, creating dams and mini bunds, planting trees to soak up water where appropriate and creating a peat bog.
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has raised some valid points but part of the reason that I will not be supporting her Motion today is that a lot of her concerns will be addressed in the guidance, one would hope. It is important to note that burning will take place only during the burning season, from 1 October to 15 April, which is the wettest time of the year in my experience. It is very seldom that we have a drought during that time. There are powers with Natural England to take action for future events—which I realise is after the event—through Regulations 6 and 7 if a party breaches the terms of the regulations. With those provisos, I am prepared to accept the regulations before us this afternoon. It is a cautionary message to the wise that we should have the guidance at the same time as the regulations are before us.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, this is a very emotive subject and one that often generates contradictions. The subject of the SI is the licensing of heather burning on moors which are within an SSSI, an SAC or an SPA area.
Arguments have suggested that allowing heather and grass burning on a rotational basis leads to increased flooding and wildfires. I am not convinced by these arguments. I live close to the Somerset Levels, where the peat does not catch fire but does flood on a regular basis. Those of us living in the south-west saw extensive television coverage in February of an intense wildfire on Dartmoor which burned out of control overnight. Fire crews attended from a large area over the south-west. At the same time, there was a fire on Bodmin Moor. I cannot speak for the wildfire on Bodmin, but the fire on Dartmoor was started deliberately. Dartmoor is a site of a blanket peat bog.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, have referred to the effect of wildfires. Of the wildfires in the Devon and Somerset fire authority region since 2016, 36 have been accidental, started by sparks from bonfires, chimneys, discarded cigarette ends, barbecues et cetera—the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to this. Some 32 fires were started deliberately on others’ property, four were started deliberately on the owner’s property and 19 were started deliberately where the owner was unknown. This is a total of 91, or an average of 15 per year. However, there was only one wildfire in 2016 but a peak of 30 in 2019. There have been three so far this year; only one was accidental.
The fire that raged on Saddleworth Moor in 2018 burnt for 10 days. It was started deliberately, involved fire crews from seven counties and destroyed four square miles of moorland in an area covered by a no-burn policy. Management of the moorland is a very delicate balance between protecting the wildlife, regrowth of the heather and sphagnum moss and protection of the peat bog. It would seem to me that having well-organised and regulated cool burning is far better than leaving the heather to become old and dry and suspectable to largescale wildfires which could ignite the underlying peat, causing far more damage.
In 2019, 153 fires took place in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service area, only four were in areas of moorland managed for grouse and none happened during the burning season. All were due to accident or arson. The issue of licencing for burning is obviously not likely to reduce the risk of wildfires.
I sit on the Secondary Legislation and Scrutiny Committee and have been involved in discussions there. The Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the SI is confusing, with inconsistencies in figures for just how much of the moorland is affected by the instrument and how much of the peatbog is covered.
However confusing the SI is, one thing is clear: blanket bog is a valuable resource for carbon storage and sequestration. As referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the UK’s blanket bog represents 13% of the world’s resource and therefore needs protecting. There are currently consents to burn over 142,000 hectares, which is 90% of the SSSI designated deep peat and 40% of upland deep peat. Licences to burn cover peat only to a depth of 40 centimetres. This is not deep peat. This is a cool burn. Since 2017, 47% of consents have been removed. Of those that remain, 50% are in perpetuity. Can the Minister tell the House, in numbers not percentages, just how many consents to burn have been granted in perpetuity and how the Government plan to deal with these licences?
Defra has not helped itself with its answers to the Secondary Legislation and Scrutiny Committee questions. There was an element of arrogance that has not moved the arguments forward, in particular in relation to the blurring between what constitutes guidance and what is legislation. Today the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments published its report; it also had difficulty in getting elucidation from Defra on access to the map referred to in the instrument. I regret that I found the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, unnecessarily offensive.
I am concerned that the peat strategy, first trailed in the 25-year environment plan, has yet to be published, and we are dealing with these important environmental issues on an ad hoc basis. It was expected that the peat strategy would be published in early 2021. We are a quarter of the way through the year—I would describe that as early, but there is no sign of this document. Will the Government continue to deal with peat on a piecemeal basis? A proper overarching strategy is needed —and it is needed now.
My noble friend Lord Bradshaw referred to peat for horticultural use. Given the debate, the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the concerns of the Secondary Legislation and Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I strongly suggest to the Minister that he withdraw this SI, publish the peat strategy without delay, and encourage Defra to rewrite this SI to reflect that strategy.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
I thank noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. As we look forward to COP 26 this autumn, it is essential that we debate such matters fully. I will address as many of the questions put to me as I can.
This instrument—the Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021—which was laid on 16 February 2021, seeks to ban the burning without licence of specified vegetation on peat over 40 centimetres in depth on sites of special scientific interest that are also special areas of conservation and/or special protection areas.
In response to comments from my noble friend Lord Randall, I can say that its purpose is to prevent further damage to approximately 142,000 hectares of protected deep peat by clearly setting out the circumstances in which a Secretary of State, as the licensing authority, may grant a licence for burning.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, talked about the need to restore England’s peatlands. That is a priority for the Government: it will help us achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050, and it will protect valuable habitats and the biodiversity therein. Blanket bog is a fragile peatland habitat of international importance, as a number of speakers have said; the UK has 13% of the world’s blanket bog.
England’s peatlands store, overall, around 580 million tonnes of carbon, but they emit around 11 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per year. Therefore, restoring our peatlands is a crucial part of addressing climate change and achieving net zero emissions by 2050. Blanket bog is a habitat at risk of being further degraded where it is not protected from damaging activity. Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Government have responsibility for protecting this priority habitat—maintaining it as an active bog and restoring it to favourable conservation status.
The Government’s ambition is to have healthy peatlands that will provide us with a wealth of ecosystem services. This includes, as a number of speakers have pointed out, carbon storage and sequestration, a natural habitat for wildlife, high-quality drinking water and—as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out—flood mitigation. Blanket bog makes up around 40% of England’s deep peat reserves and is one of our most extensive protected habitats, yet only about 12% of it is in a near-natural state. The remainder is degraded by practices that impact on the natural functioning state of that habitat.
Rotational burning as a moorland management tool is carried out to manage unnaturally dominant heather species in winter months, typically on a 12 to 15-year rotation. While this activity does not have a significant impact on carbon emissions per se, there is now an established scientific consensus that burning of vegetation on blanket bog can be damaging to peatland formation and habitat condition, making it difficult or, in some cases, impossible to restore these habitats to their natural state and to restore their hydrology.
The Government recognise that by allowing repeated burning on protected blanket bog sites in England, they were not fulfilling their obligations under the conservation regulations. This instrument has been drafted to ensure compliance with our domestic obligations, as well as our international obligations under the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats.
Landowners and managers required consent from Natural England to burn on protected blanket bog. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell: since 2017, only 47% of those consents have expired or been removed by Natural England, and the majority remain in perpetuity, covering 52,000 hectares of protected priority habitat.
The Government have previously stated that if voluntary measures to cease burning on blanket bog did not work, they would look at the role of legislation. This voluntary approach has not worked, and this instrument aims to plug that gap. These regulations do not, however, simply ban the use of burning as a management practice on protected blanket bog sites. First, the prohibition does not apply on land that could never be accessed by cutting equipment by virtue of it being exposed rock or a steep slope. Such land can continue to be managed without need of a licence. Secondly, where land is otherwise inaccessible to cutting equipment, perhaps by virtue of its remote nature, then a licence may be considered to allow burning to take place.
The Government have also included in the regulations explicit reference to the objective of preventing wildfires. Wildfires can be devastating, as a number of speakers have made clear, for the environment, and this risk has not previously been given sufficient weight.
The evidence and process by which the Secretary of State will make decisions on licence applications will be set out in accompanying guidance—this point was raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. The Government recognise that any application process will need to be accessible to all landowners and managers. We have extensively engaged with stakeholders, and it is clear that many agree that good-quality, cohesive management plans are the key to supporting a licence application. That is why these plans will be at the heart of the process we develop. We will continue to listen to the sector and will conduct a post-implementation review of the guidance to ensure it is right.
The guidance will emphasise an aspiration that the management of the protected sites should be complementary to high-quality natural habitat restoration plans for those sites. It is hoped that through such plans, the need to manage these sites by burning will diminish and, ultimately, become unnecessary. Work to develop and produce this guidance is well under way. The Government’s engagement with the upland management sector and environmental NGOs is well established and extensive. The guidance will also set out whom the Secretary of State will consult, which will be not only Natural England but other interested stakeholders, including, for example, the local fire and rescue service when considering issuing a licence for wildfire mitigation.
The Government are very aware that the management of upland habitats, on which this regulation will have an impact, is complex and unique. They are also aware that the guidance must be capable of being understood by both large land management organisations and small estate teams. And they aware of the view, backed up by science, that there is a risk that burning heather to reduce wildfire risk could itself dry the land and exacerbate the risk. So, we are looking closely at this.
In July 2019, all consent holders on the protected sites were made aware, as part of our survey work, that the Government were considering legislation. Further targeted stakeholder engagement, as a result, was carried out in August 2019. Twenty-six key stakeholders, including environmental, shooting and conservation bodies, major landowners and protected landscape authorities took part.
The Government recognise that the new regulation may place additional burdens on some landowners and managers. However, they also recognise that inaction and the continuation of burning on protected sites will be unacceptable.
All peatland is important, and these regulations represent an important step in delivering the Government’s nature recovery and climate change mitigation targets. We will set out further measures to protect England’s peatlands this year as part of a package of measures to deliver nature-based solutions. This instrument attempts to strike the right balance between protecting our habitats from harm and ensuring that our landowners and managers have the right tools available to protect those habitats and restore them to their natural state.
A number of additional questions were raised by noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about flooding, and the answer is that acting now to protect our peatlands from further degradation and investing in their restoration will mean they are resilient to further climate change and will begin to contribute to our net zero targets. In a healthy, functioning state, our peatlands will help us mitigate carbon emissions and adapt to climate change while also providing a whole wealth of public goods, including flood mitigation and provision of good-quality drinking water.
I was asked when the peat strategy will be published. We will publish it soon.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, asked about monitoring. The monitoring of specific impacts from burning is not done on a granular scale. However, the Environment Agency and Natural England monitor the overall condition of our rivers and moorlands, and Natural England keeps up to date with all the latest scientific studies, which include monitoring the specific impacts of burning.
I was asked whether the Government agree with the comments of the RSPB, a comment echoed by my noble friend Lord Caithness. Some of the clearest evidence points to improving the resilience of our peatlands to wildfire by ensuring that they are wet and in a natural state. Managed burning results in an increase in vegetation type, such as heather, which have a higher fuel load compared with natural blanket bog vegetation.
I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, if we had been subjected to pressure from landowners. Yes, of course we have. We have been lobbied by all interest groups—everyone from the large landowners to the small and from the conservation groups to the NGOs, as would be expected. We have balanced the information that we have received from all of them.
My noble friend Lord Ridley raised a number of issues, particularly around the science. The growing evidence base shows that, on balance, the consensus of scientific opinion in the UK is that burning on blanket bog is detrimental, as it moves the bog away from its original wet state and risks vulnerable peat bogs becoming converted to drier heathland habitat. However, the Government are aware that research is ongoing and there are findings both in support of and against the practice; I am therefore happy to confirm to him that we will continue to listen to the science and keep our policy and our minds open.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked about the use of peat in horticulture. We are committed to phasing out the use of peat in horticulture in England, and we intend to publish a formal consultation shortly.
My noble friends Lord Benyon and Lord Caithness raised a number of issues around wildfire. I hope that I have addressed them. I simply say that some of the clearest evidence that we have points to improving the resilience of our peatlands to wildfire by ensuring that they are wet.
My noble friend Lord Marland, pointed out that we were lucky to live in a green and pleasant land. We do live in one: this country is among the most beautiful in the world, but it is also—we must be honest—one of the most nature-denuded. The biodiversity decline just in my lifetime—the last 45 or 50 years—is not far off 70%, so we do have a biodiversity crisis in this country and it requires us to address it.
My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury also made the point about biodiversity. Blanket bog in favourable condition will have a minimum of six plant indicator species, including heather, cotton-grasses, feather mosses and sphagnum species. The best examples might have as many as 12 indicator species. Where bog is degraded, dry and heather-dominated, there might be only heather and a few feather mosses—in some cases only two indicator species.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made a number of points. We, of course, recognise that the significant amounts of peat—this is in response to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, as well—will fall outside the scope of this regulation. It will enhance the protections afforded to about 142,000 hectares, but we will be setting out further measures to protect England’s peatlands this year as part of a package of measures. This is a first step.
The noble Baroness also asked whether I enjoyed doing toasts with my shooting mates while we guffawed at the ruination of the countryside. I do not have a particularly large number of shooting mates and I do not engage in shooting. As I approach these issues, I do so with a keen interest in ensuring that I am looking at the science and aiming for a balanced policy —one that is, above all, in the interests of our country and its natural environment.
I can see that I am running out of time. I hope that I have covered most—I do not think all—of the questions raised by Members. To conclude, I trust that noble Lords understand the need for this instrument. It represents an important first step in our efforts to restore, recover and protect all of England’s peatlands. All peat is important; while these regulations only extend additional protections to our most protected sites, they are just a first step. They will ensure that burning is a management technique that only takes place in the right place and for the right reasons. Once again, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and support today. I commend the regulations to the House.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a very good debate and have given the issues a very thorough airing despite the restrictions on time. I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I just make a few quick comments.
On the issue of science, which a number of noble Lords raised, the evidence has been reviewed and reviewed again. Each time it comes to the same conclusion, which is that we need to stop burning blanket bog or vegetation on blanket bog. Several people referred to the science produced by MA, et cetera, but even that has been disputed in a peer review. The Minister and I were agreed on the science issue, so I am glad that that is not really an issue for debate.
I also accept the point, which a number of noble Lords raised, that there is interesting biodiversity and a growth in biodiversity in the burned areas. But it is a very different biodiversity from that found in our historic, deep blanket bogs. You cannot equate one with the other; we need to protect both. I do not think that just replacing moorland with blanket bog is the right way to go about it. Both have their place, and we certainly need to do our best to restore what blanket bog we have or have had.
Secondly, it is true that there have been some voluntary cessations of rotational burning and there have been some partnerships on peat restoration, and I am very pleased that a number of landowners have co-operated on this. But as the secondary legislation points out, these are not on the scale needed to be effective. Thirdly, I accept that there are other initiatives running at the same time as this SI, such as the Nature for Climate Fund. But, again, this a voluntary scheme when we need firm legislative action.
Finally, we are running out of time—there is a climate change emergency. Restoring our unique and valuable blanket bog habitat has to be harnessed as part of that solution to help deliver our net-zero targets. Although it is great that the Government are addressing their conservation responsibilities, where are the regulations to meet our climate change responsibilities as set out in the Climate Change Act and, indeed, our international obligations on the same issue?
I do not detect any of the required urgency in what the Minister has had to say today, and I do not accept that sight of the guidance will give any of the answers that we are looking for, because they are predicated on the basis of the restricted land area and the loose exemptions for which our Motion to Regret is critical. So, I do not think that seeing the guidance is the answer.
On this basis, I once again regret that the Minister has not felt able to reconsider his approach to peatland burning and to come back with a more comprehensive programme of action to apply this year. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House on this issue.