House of Commons
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately) [V]
Regulation of fertility treatment services is UK-wide, but policy is devolved. In England, decisions about local fertility services are determined by clinical commissioning groups, taking account of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, which include provision for same-sex female couples.
Margaret Ferrier [V]
At present, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority guidance largely prohibits supplying sperm for insemination at home. Same-sex couples who are trying to get pregnant have few options via the NHS other than to access insemination services from a registered UK clinic. That means that couples who live further away from such clinics face further costs in their aspiration to start a family. Will the Minister, working with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the HFEA, explore ways in which this issue could be mitigated?
Helen Whately
On the question about the delivery of sperm to residential addresses, that can be done across the UK, but the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority advises against it because the origin of the sample and whether it is undamaged cannot be guaranteed. Undergoing treatment at a licensed UK clinic provides the donor and the patient with legal certainty about their parental status and their future responsibilities, but I am very happy to take up the hon. Lady’s question further with the Minister for Innovation, as this sits in his portfolio.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The latest Office for National Statistics official statistics show the female employment rate at 71.8% at the end of January 2021. The Government recognise that times are hard for many women and men, which is why we have extended the furlough scheme until September, alongside new measures in our plan for jobs, such as our £2 billion kickstart scheme and the restart programme, which launches this summer.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
Covid forced short-term modifications to working practices, which demonstrate that change is possible, but proactive steps are needed to secure long-term improvements in flexible working to support the work and caring responsibilities of women in particular. Does the Minister agree that flexibility should be available from day one of a new job rather than being a possibility six months in, will she ensure that the forthcoming employment Bill provides for that, and will she confirm that that Bill will be in the Queen’s Speech?
Mims Davies
The hon. Lady raises something really important. At the Department for Work and Pensions we have been incredibly flexible with our team, and they have been incredibly flexible as a result, so I absolutely agree that flexibility is really important and will be keenly supporting changes to make sure that more women are part of the workforce. It is pleasing that, compared with men’s, the fall in women’s employment has been better through the covid pandemic. As the UK Government, we want to do as much as we can to support women to progress and thrive in the workplace or, indeed, working at home more flexibly.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)
As part of the G7, we will be hosting the gender equality advisory council. Led by Sarah Sands, it will help women build back better across the world, including on ending violence against women, women’s economic empowerment, and education for women and girls.
Julie Marson [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for her response. Does she agree that flexible working is key, not just to open up more opportunities for more people but to address the UK’s perennial productivity puzzle?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right: flexible working should be the standard offer from employers. Recent Government Equalities Office research shows that there are 30% more applicants where jobs are advertised as flexible. That particularly brings benefits to women and those who live outside the major cities, and it can help us level up our country and make it more productive.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
The tragic death of Sarah Everard has reminded us that we need to work together to ensure women do not feel at risk of harm on our streets. Since this senseless tragedy, we have taken immediate action by more than doubling the safer streets fund and building on what works by supporting measures such as better lighting and CCTV. The Minister for Crime and Policing will also hold a summit with police, the violence against women and girls sector, and industry representatives from the night-time economy on preparations to protect women as pandemic restrictions lift.
Simon Fell [V]
I thank the Minister for her response. Following that tragic case, a good number of my constituents have been in touch with their concerns over whether their local area is safe. One of them, Courtney Beech, who is an outreach worker for Drop Zone in Barrow, is concerned about the lack of lighting in local parks and the cemetery. What efforts are the Government making to ensure that good practice is being shared with local authorities and other local organisations to keep women feeling safe and secure, especially at night time?
Kemi Badenoch
I share my hon. Friend’s concern. No one should feel unsafe walking on the street, least of all those who are doing valuable work in the community like Drop Zone. I hope he can reassure his constituents of the Government’s commitment to this issue. The safer streets fund has been more than doubled so it can support interventions such as street lighting and CCTV, which will make people feel safer, and they are the responsibility of local authorities.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
In order to make the streets safer for women, we must tackle the culture underpinning male violence. Does my hon. Friend agree with the conclusion of the February 2020 report of the Government Equalities Office that the use of pornography is an important contributing factor to harmful sexual behaviours? If so, how will she make sure that the Government emphasis is not simply on street lights, but also on the causes of male violence against women?
Kemi Badenoch
I think I can certainly say that I personally agree with my right hon. Friend. I do know that these issues have been looked at by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). She is not here today, unfortunately, but she has been looking into this issue and I will follow it up with her to provide a more comprehensive response to my right hon. Friend’s question.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
Science and technology will drive our country’s future and women are brilliant at STEM— science, technology, engineering and maths. There are now more girls taking chemistry and biology at A-level than boys, but we need to continue to make progress in other subjects. Initiatives such as T-levels provide an excellent opportunity for girls interested in STEM.
Paul Howell
Could I ask the Minister to encourage young women to utilise options like the South Durham University Technical College in Newton Aycliffe, where every one of last year’s students got an outcome they wanted, whether it was a job or further education? The UTC is supported by companies such as Hitachi and Gestamp, and that can create great STEM-based career opportunities. However, currently only about 20% of the students are female. Does she agree with me that more should consider this educational option? The next time she is in the north-east, will she come to see for herself the opportunities that are being created,?
Vicky Ford
I thank my hon. Friend for championing women in STEM. I congratulate the UTC in Newton Aycliffe for helping women to gain access to prestigious engineering jobs and higher technical opportunities. It is great to see more women taking up subjects such as engineering, but we would like to see more. A really proper and meaningful conversation with a woman role model who has already broken through STEM barriers can inspire girls and young women to enter STEM careers. Companies, such as those he mentions, have an important role in that.
Peter Aldous [V]
I welcome the Minister’s reply. Participation in STEM can lead to exciting career opportunities in such sectors as renewable energy, but to ensure that young women have every opportunity to pursue their ambitions there must be a career-long pathway that enables them to realise their full potential. That should include fair recruitment processes, the promotion of alumni networks that ensure skill retention and the development of retention programmes. I would welcome an assurance from my hon. Friend that she is liaising with her ministerial colleagues to put in place a route map that includes such staging posts.
Vicky Ford
It is really positive that we have more women studying to become doctors and that four out of five students studying to become vets are women, but it is less good that only one in five engineering students are women. Initiatives such as Tomorrow’s Engineers Code, which was launched by EngineeringUK, is bringing together Government, business and academia to increase the number and diversity of young people pursuing engineering codes. As one of many Government organisations who have signed the code, we have pledged to work with the engineering community to improve quality targeting, inclusivity and reach of engineering activities.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The Government are committed to supporting disabled people affected by the covid-19 outbreak. As part of Access to Work, we have introduced a more blended offer to help disabled people find and stay in work, including prioritising applications from disabled people in the clinically extremely vulnerable group.
Debbie Abrahams [V]
The UK’s high and unequal covid death toll includes disabled people, who account for six out of 10 covid deaths. Last month’s Office for National Statistics data showed that both disabled men and women are more than three times more likely to die if they contract covid than non-disabled people. Even when we adjust for various factors including age or pre-existing health conditions, there is still an additional covid risk associated with disability. So I repeat my question from last June: what assessment have the Government undertaken of the covid deaths of working-age disabled social security claimants? Given their additional risk, what are the Government doing to protect them?
Mims Davies
I know that the hon. Lady is very passionate about making sure that anybody with barriers, anybody impacted on by this pandemic, is absolutely supported, and that is something that we have been doing at DWP. Through our Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, we are listening to and engaging with charities and hearing from those people who are working, those with learning disabilities, autistic people, and people with complex needs. Of course, this is an incredibly worrying time for people with disabilities. The Minister is looking at this very carefully and will keep it under review.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)
I am committed to banning conversion therapy. It is an abhorrent practice and I will shortly be bringing forward plans to do just that.
John Lamont
I am grateful for that response. I am absolutely clear that this practice has no place in a civilised society. Being from the LGBT+ community is not an illness to be treated or cured, and I agree with the Prime Minister who calls conversion therapy “abhorrent” and “repulsive”. In the light of this, what can the Minister do to accelerate the ban?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have been working to make sure that the measures that we put in place are enforceable and fully researched. I am confident that we will be able to announce progress on this very soon.
Michael Fabricant [V]
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) are absolutely right to condemn this dreadful practice. The problem with it is that not only is it cruel, but it does not work—it is absolutely pointless. As well as imposing a ban, what can my right hon. Friend do to educate religions or other groups who think that this abhorrent practice has a purpose?
Elizabeth Truss
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that practices that harm or try to convert somebody into being something they are not, are not just wrong but completely inappropriate and unacceptable. That is why we will be bringing forward our plans to ban this practice very shortly. He is right that it should be true in all circumstances, including with religious practices. Of course, we must protect religious free speech, but we cannot condone those harmful practices taking place.
Dr Huq [V]
It is good to hear the Minister’s words after three years of dither and delay that have cost the Government three members of their LGBT panel. Can she now give us a legislative timetable for when ending this archaic practice of conversion therapy will be on the statute book once and for all?
Elizabeth Truss
I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to get on with doing this. I can assure her that since I got this job a year ago I have been working to make sure that the ban we put in place is properly enforceable and has the right measures in place. We have been looking at international experience to ensure that we do this correctly, but I am very keen to get on with it and I can assure the hon. Lady that we are very much on it.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that it has been almost three years since the Government committed to ending the practice of conversion therapy. Will she therefore take this opportunity to apologise to all those who have been harmed by these abhorrent practices as a result of the Government’s inaction, and commit today to bringing forward a full legislative ban on practices to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, to give all LGBT people the protection that they deserve?
Elizabeth Truss
I am very clear that these practices are utterly abhorrent. I would point out that I have been in this job for a year and I have been working to make sure that the ban we put in place is enforceable. I have also dealt with a number of other long-standing issues, such as responding to the consultation on the reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to make the process simpler and kinder for transgender people, improving transgender health care and changing the blood donation criteria for gay men donating blood. We are also working on an international LGBT conference, entitled Safe to Be Me, to end discrimination across the world. It is always important with legislation to ensure that we get it right and that it is properly enforceable, and we will be bringing plans forward shortly.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
We know that the pandemic has been hard on all families, especially those who have been juggling work and childcare. That is one of the reasons why schools have remained open to the children of key workers throughout this time, and why early years settings have remained open to all since last June. I meet regularly with colleagues across Government to discuss support for families.
Patricia Gibson [V]
Universal credit’s young parent penalty denies single parents under 25 years old the same level of social security as those above that age, pushing those affected—90% of whom are women, and the majority of them in work—into poverty. What representations is the Minister making to her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to fix this arbitrary inequality and discriminatory practice in the social security system and to abolish the young parent penalty?
Vicky Ford
This UK Government have put unprecedented amounts—billions—into support for jobs and incomes, including the £150 million flexible support fund, which helps women access childcare. The billions that the UK has put into supporting jobs, especially for those on low incomes, are yet another reminder of why the people of Scotland increasingly agree that they are better off as part of the UK.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)
We have a huge opportunity, as we recover from covid-19, for women across the world to build back better. That is why I am convening a group of leaders in the G7 gender equality advisory council this year under the newly appointed chair, Sarah Sands, with leaders such as Professor Sarah Gilbert, who spearheaded the Oxford vaccine, Ritu Karidhal, who helped to lead India’s Mars orbital mission and Iris Bohnet, who has revolutionised our understanding of fairness in the work- place. Together, we can lead on education for women and girls, women’s economic empowerment, and ending violence against women across the world.
Peter Gibson [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. May I commend her on her choice of Darlington for the newly announced Department for International Trade hubs? I look forward to welcoming her to the Tees Valley. I also welcome her commitment to a ban on conversion therapy. Does she agree that this so-called therapy is abuse and that those who perpetrate such abuse should be prevented in law from being able to do so? As a gay man and a Christian, I believe that such controls must also extend to religious organisations that seek to change a person’s sexuality. Will she ensure that the ban extends to these too?
Elizabeth Truss
I was delighted to announce yesterday that we will be bringing a trade and investment hub to Darlington. We are also looking at moving the headquarters of our Equalities Office to the north of England, and no doubt Darlington will be putting in a bid for that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need to stamp out coercion and causing people harm wherever it takes place. That is what I am determined to do, and that is what I will be bringing forward shortly.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Over the past 10 days we have seen the Government try to defend their poor record on ending violence against women. They have recently reopened the consultation on this issue, but there is no use in consulting people if the Government are not going to take any action. Take the consultation on sexual harassment in the workplace, which closed 18 months ago. We have seen no response from the Minister and no action from the Government, despite the fact that half of women experience sexual harassment at work. Can the Minister tell the House today when she will respond to this consultation and take the much-needed action to end sexual harassment?
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
It is quite wrong to say that the Government are taking no action on tackling violence against women. We will be publishing a new strategy in spring 2021, which will help to better target perpetrators and support victims of these crimes. The call for evidence to input into this work has been extended to 26 March, and it is vital that we hear from women everywhere, especially given recent public discussions and concerns.
There is so much that we have been doing, including the end-to-end rape review, which is looking at how every stage of the criminal justice system handles rape cases from police report to the final outcome at court. If the hon. Lady does want to work with us to end violence against women, the way to do it is constructively and not by making accusations that we are not taking any action.
Marsha De Cordova
We on this side of the House are very committed to ending violence against women and girls, but there is a pattern with this Government. They consult and they review, but they take very little action.
Yesterday we marked a year since the first national lockdown. The pandemic, as we all know, has had an unequal impact on our black, Asian and ethnic minority people. Last July, the Prime Minister commissioned a review into race and ethnic disparities. It was due to be published in December last year, than they delayed it until February this year, and it is now nearly April and still no report.
Can the Minister tell us when the Prime Minister intends to publish his report, and will it be accompanied by a race equality strategy to tackle the ongoing structural and institutional inequalities?
Kemi Badenoch
The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities will be reporting shortly, but it is disappointing that the hon. Lady seems to forget it is an independent commission. It is not the Prime Minister but an independent commission that will be publishing the report. What will happen afterwards is that the Government will provide their response to the commission’s recommendations, and we shall wait and see what the commission recommends.
What I have intended is that the commission has the freedom and the space to provide a set of recommendations that are robust. We are doing this not on dates but on data, and we need to make sure it is something that will stand the test of time and not just be a response to Opposition Members who are not actually interested in solving this problem but want to use it politically.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) [V]
Kemi Badenoch
The Government have taken several important steps to ensure women are able to access the sanitary products they need. From 1 January 2021 the tampon tax has been abolished, with a zero rate of VAT applied to women’s sanitary products coming into effect. The Department for Education is leading a scheme to provide access to free period products in schools and colleges in England, NHS England announced in March 2019 that it will offer free period products to every hospital patient who needs them, including long-term patients, and the Home Office has changed the law to ensure that all people in custody are provided with free health and hygiene products, including period products.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Lady raises a very interesting question, and this is something the Government are aware of and are looking into. Yesterday, I spoke to Dr Tony Sewell, who is chairing the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities; I am aware that it has researched this extensively and I look forward to seeing what its report says on it.
Mr Speaker
I am sorry we did not get as many Members in as normal, but we have to move on to questions to the Prime Minister.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
The last 12 months have been the most difficult for a generation, and I know that the thoughts of the whole House are with all those who have lost loved ones during the pandemic. I also want to pay tribute to every person in this country for playing their part, whether working on the frontline, staying at home to prevent the spread of the virus, or working on vaccine development and supply. It is that vaccination programme that has brought hope, allowing us to set out the cautious but irreversible road map out of lockdown.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.
Stephen Farry [V]
Many independent countries, from Switzerland to New Zealand, have bilateral veterinary agreements with the European Union and face lower non-tariff barriers than the UK, despite our very high standards. With the Food and Drink Federation reporting a massive drop in UK food exports—over 90% in some areas—and with sanitary and phytosanitary checks constituting the main challenge for the Northern Ireland protocol, surely the Prime Minister should be making it a priority to negotiate a bespoke UK-EU veterinary agreement?
The Prime Minister
That is exactly why we put in temporary and technical measures to allow free trade to continue across the whole of the UK. It is very important for those who object to the measures that we have taken that the protocol should uphold the principle of east-west trade, as well as north-south trade, and that is exactly what we are trying to do.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I can certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Adam Doyle, Charlotte Luck and Dr Susie Padgham for all their efforts, and my hon. Friend is completely right in what she says about the foundations of the UK’s vaccine success. I had my jab on Friday. I do not know whether you have had yours, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] You certainly have. I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has had his. I encourage everybody to get it.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
May I start by joining the Prime Minister in his remarks about yesterday’s day of reflection for the 126,000 people who lost their lives to covid? That is a shocking number, and behind every one of those numbers is a grieving family. As soon as restrictions lift, there must be a full public inquiry, because that is the only way we can get to the bottom of the many mistakes that were made during the pandemic and find justice for those who have suffered so much.
Why did the Prime Minister promise at the last election that he would
“not be cutting our armed services in any form”?
The Prime Minister
That was because what we were going to do was actually increase spending on our armed services by the biggest amount since the cold war. We are investing £24 billion in modernising our armed forces, with no redundancies, and keeping our Army at 100,000, if we include the reserves. I must say that I take it slightly amiss from the right hon. and learned Gentleman given that he stood on a manifesto to elect a man who wanted to pull this country out of NATO.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister is fighting the last war. Is he trying to pretend, hidden in that answer, that the Army stands at over 100,000—the number that the Prime Minister just quoted? When the Secretary of State for Defence made his statement to the House on Monday, he was absolutely clear:
“I have therefore taken the decision to reduce the size of the Army…to 72,500 by 2025.”—[Official Report, 22 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 638.]
Only this Prime Minister could suggest that a reduction from 82,000 to 72,000 is somehow not a cut.
The Prime Minister did not answer my question, which was: why did he make that promise? He said, before the last election—it is all very well him looking up—that
“we will not be cutting our armed services in any form”.
What did he do this week? He cut the British Army by 10,000; he cut the number of tanks; he cut the number of planes for our RAF; and he cut the number of ships for the Royal Navy. I say “he”—the Prime Minister did not have the courage to come to the House himself to say what he was doing. Let me ask the Prime Minister a simple question, going back to that promise before the election: did he ever intend to keep his promise to our armed forces?
The Prime Minister
Not only did we keep our promise in the manifesto, but we actually increased spending by 14% more than that manifesto commitment. It is frankly satirical to be lectured about the size of the Army when the shadow Foreign Secretary herself wrote only recently that the entire British Army should be turned into a kind of peace corps, and when, as I say, the Leader of the Opposition stood on a manifesto and wanted to elect a leader who wanted to disband the armed services. We are making a massive investment in our defences and in our future. It is wonderful to hear the new spirit of jingo that seems to have enveloped some of those on the Labour Benches—they don’t like it up ’em, Mr Speaker.
Keir Starmer
Let’s try this for up ’em. The Prime Minister might want to avoid the promises he made, but I have found an interview that he gave during the general election campaign. Here is the headline: “No troop cuts—Tories will maintain size of armed forces”. The article then goes on to quote the Prime Minister: “Boris Johnson has promised that he will not make any new cuts to the armed forces. He also promised”—the Prime Minister might want to listen to this—“to maintain numbers at their current level, including the Army’s 82,000.” Now, I know the Prime Minister has form for making up quotes, but can he tell us whether he thinks the newspapers have somehow misquoted him? Or does he now remember making that promise?
The Prime Minister
Yes, because there will be no redundancies in our armed forces and, as I said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if we include reserves, we are even keeping the Army at 100,000. On top of that, we are doing what is necessary to modernise our armed forces, taking them into the 21st century. We are building more frigates and investing in cyber-warfare. We are doing all the difficult things that Labour shirked during its time in office, including modernising and upgrading our nuclear deterrent, which half the shadow Front-Bench team would like to remove, leaving Britain defenceless internationally.
Keir Starmer
I have every respect for our reservists, but the Prime Minister is just playing with the numbers. He knows very well that the numbers have been cut. The trouble is that we just cannot trust the Conservatives to protect our armed forces. [Interruption.] Let us look—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, let us look at their most recent manifestos. These are the manifestos that Conservative Members stood on. The 2015 manifesto—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am struggling to hear the Leader of the Opposition, and I will hear the Leader of the Opposition. Please, I want respect for the Prime Minister and I expect the same for the Leader of the Opposition.
Keir Starmer
The 2015 manifesto said:
“We will maintain the size of the regular armed services”.
The 2017 manifesto:
“We will maintain the overall size of the armed forces”.
In 2019, the Prime Minister said that
“we will not be cutting our armed services in any form.”
The truth is that since 2010 our armed forces have been cut by 45,000 and our Army will now be cut to its lowest level in 300 years. Let me remind the Prime Minister and Conservative Members why this matters. Lord Richards, former Chief of the Defence Staff, has warned that with an armed force of this size now
“we almost certainly…would not be able to retake the Falklands…and stop genocides”.
[Interruption.] He says it is rubbish. That is Lord Richards, Prime Minister. After 10 years of Conservative government, is the Prime Minister not ashamed of that?
The Prime Minister
This Conservative Government are massively proud of the investment that we made in our armed forces which, as I have said, is the biggest uplift since the cold war. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should look at what the NATO Secretary General had to say about our investment, which is absolutely vital for the future success of the alliance and, indeed, for the security of many other countries around the world. It is a £24 billion investment—investment in the future combat air system, the new Army special operations Ranger Regiment, £1.3 billion to upgrade the Challenger main battle tanks, a massive investment in the Typhoon squadrons and so on.
We are investing in the future. Yes, of course, we have had to take some tough decisions, but that is because we believe in our defences and we believe that they should be more than merely symbolic. It is the Labour party that is consistently, historically—it is hilarious to be lectured about the Falklands, Mr Speaker—weak on protecting this country. It was most visible last week during the debate on the integrated review, when it was plain that those on the shadow Front Bench could not even agree to maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent. That is absolutely true, Mr Speaker.
Keir Starmer
What is weaker than making a promise to our armed forces just before the election, then breaking it and not being prepared to admit it—not having the courage to admit it? There is a pattern here. The Prime Minister promised the NHS that they would have “whatever they need”; now nurses are getting a pay cut. He promised a tax guarantee; now he is putting taxes up for families. He promised that he would not cut the armed forces; now he has done just that. If the Prime Minister is so proud of what he is doing, so determined to push ahead, why does he not at least have the courage to put this cut in the armed forces to a vote in this House?
The Prime Minister
I am proud of what we are doing to increase spending on the armed forces by the biggest amount since the cold war. The only reason that we can do that is that, under this Conservative Government, we have been running a sound economy. It is also because we believe in defence. We have been getting on with job. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about nurses and investment in the NHS. I am proud of the massive investment that we have made in the NHS. Actually, we have 60,000 more nurses now in training, and we have increased their starting salary by 12.8%. We are getting on with the job of recruiting more police—20,000 more police. I think that we have done 7,000 already, while they are out on the streets at demonstrations, shouting, “Kill the Bill”. That is the difference between his party and my party. We are pro-vax, low tax and, when it comes to defence, we have got your backs.
Mr Speaker
Order. I genuinely mean this: I do not believe that any Member of Parliament would support that “Kill the Bill”. We are all united in this House in the support and the protection that the police offer us and nobody would shy away from that.
Keir Starmer
The question, Prime Minister, is why not have the courage to put it to a vote. That question was avoided, Mr Speaker, like all of the questions. We all know why he will not put it to a vote. Let me quote a Conservative MP, the Chair of the Defence Committee, because he recognises—he has experience and respect across the House—that this review means
“dramatic cuts to our troop numbers, tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and more than 100 RAF aircraft”.
He went on to say—this is your MP, Prime Minister—
“cuts that, if tested by a parliamentary vote, I do not believe would pass.”—[Official Report, 22 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 644-645.]
Those words are not from me, but from the Prime Minister’s own MPs.
I want to turn to another issue that affects thousands of jobs and many communities across the country. Some 5,000 jobs are at risk at Liberty Steel, as well as many more in the supply chain. The UK steel industry is under huge pressure, and the Government’s failure to prioritise British steel in infrastructure projects is costing millions of pounds of investment. Will the Prime Minister now commit to working with us and the trade unions to change this absurd situation, to put British steel first and to do whatever is necessary to protect those jobs?
The Prime Minister
Just a reminder—I am, of course, happy to co-operate in any way—that the steel output halved under the Labour Government. I share very much the anxiety of families of steelworkers at Liberty Steel. That is why my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has had, I think, three meetings with Liberty Steel in just the last few days to take the question forward and see what we can do. We are actively engaged. We are investing huge sums in modernising British steel, making a commitment to British steel plants and making them more environmentally friendly.
We have a massive opportunity, because this Government are engaged on a £640 billion infrastructure campaign: HS2, the great Dogger Bank wind farm, Hinkley, the Beeching railway reversals. All these things that we are doing across the country will call for millions and millions of tonnes of British steel. Now, thanks to leaving the European Union, we have an opportunity to direct that procurement at British firms in the way that we would want to, whereas I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would like nothing more than to take this country back into the European Union and remove that opportunity for British steel and British steelworkers.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes; my message is just to thank them for what they have put up with and to say that I am sorry about how difficult it has been for their generation. I do not think there is any group of young people who have been put through so much and who have had to sacrifice so much in our lifetimes. We owe it to them to repair their education and get them into work as fast as we possibly can. That is why we have set out the £2 billion kickstart fund and many other schemes that I hope will be useful to my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]
Yesterday, my brilliant colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), made his final speech to this Parliament. He is standing for the Scottish Parliament and is doing the right thing by stepping down as an MP. By doing the right thing, he will avoid a dual mandate and a separate by-election that would cost the public £175,000. The Scottish Tory leader in Westminster is also seeking a place in the Scottish Parliament, but he is refusing to step down as an MP. As his boss, will the Prime Minister order the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) to resign his seat, avoid a dual mandate and save the taxpayer £175,000—or are dual mandates one more Tory policy where they think greed is good?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) is doing an excellent job of holding the Scottish National party to account for their manifold failings, not least on education—failing to deliver on crime and failing, in my view, to deliver for the people of Scotland, so caught up as they are in their desire for independence and another referendum for separation. I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned that so far, but perhaps he will now.
Ian Blackford
[Inaudible] simply yet again a Prime Minister failing to answer a question and that charge that “greed is good” in Tory policies.
We know that Tory leaders in Scotland have a habit of dodging democracy. Baroness Davidson is fleeing the House of Lords and the current Tory leader is too feart to stand in a constituency. No wonder this morning’s Daily Record declared that the Scottish Tories have
“exposed themselves as shameless…nasty”
and just “plain daft”. It also says:
“They are led by…a man so devoid of imagination that when asked what he would do if he was prime minister for a day, replied: ‘I would like to see tougher enforcement against Gypsy travellers.’”
Does the Prime Minister really have confidence in a Scottish Tory leader who does not even have the courage to put himself before the voters in a Scottish constituency?
The Prime Minister
Of course. The right hon. Gentleman represents a party that is so devoid of imagination that they cannot come up with any workable solutions to help the people of Scotland improve their education, improve the fight against crime, or cut taxes in Scotland, where they are the highest in the whole of the UK. They are so devoid of imagination that they are a one-track record—all they can talk about is a referendum to break up the United Kingdom. That is their song. I am amazed, actually, that it is twice he has not mentioned it—maybe he is getting nervous of singing that particular song. It is rather curious. He is not coming back now, is he, but next week, or after Easter, let us see if he mentions it again.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a passionate and successful advocate for her constituents and for steelmaking in this country, in which this Government passionately believe. That is why, as I said to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), we are supporting the UK steel industry with more than £500 million of relief, and also with huge investments to make our steelmaking greener and more competitive. We will do everything we can to ensure that we continue with British jobs in producing British steel with the infrastructure investments that I have mentioned and directing procurement at British jobs in the way that we now can.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
The Prime Minister talks about restoring freedoms as we emerge from the lockdown, yet he is pushing a Bill that will restrict one of our most fundamental freedoms—the right to peaceful protest and peaceful assembly—and tomorrow he is asking for another blank cheque to restrict everyone’s freedoms until September, even though we now know that the vast bulk of the Coronavirus Act 2020 is not needed to tackle the pandemic. So will the Prime Minister, for once, match his actions to his words, drop these draconian laws, and instead publish a road map to revive civil liberties and freedoms in our country?
The Prime Minister
I sympathise very much with the right hon. Gentleman’s desire to see freedoms restored, and I want to do that as fast as we possibly can. That is why we have set out the cautious but, we hope, irreversible road map that we have, which I hope he supports—and I hope the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras also supports, although you can never tell. What we also want to do is make sure that we are able to deal with the very considerable backlog that we have faced because of the pandemic: making sure that we have powers still to accelerate court procedures with Zoom courts; making sure that we allow volunteers to continue to help in the NHS and retired staff to come back to the colours; and making sure that we have powers that are necessary in education. It is important to be able to continue with those special measures for the months ahead, and that is why we have set out the Bill as we have.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I certainly understand my hon. Friend’s strong feelings on this issue, and her campaign is shared by many Members across the House. That is why we launched the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry, which has made quite fast progress. Yes, we do want to learn the lessons. Yes, we do want to make sure that the right people are held to account for what happened and that the Post Office never repeats a mistake like this.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
I knew it would n0t be long—there they are! There are a couple of reasons. First of all, senior members of the hon. Member’s party said that it was a “once in a generation” event in 2014. I think that that point of view is shared across the House, and quite rightly. The other reason, which is absolutely plain to people in this country, is that we are all trying to build back better and get out of a pandemic. That is the priority for the British people—it is the priority for the whole country —and I think people are, frankly, amazed to hear the Scottish nationalist party still, in these circumstances, banging on about their constitutional obsessions.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend very much for raising this important question and for championing research into motor neurone disease, and I thank him also for raising the excellent work of the My Name’5 Doddie Foundation. We have spent £54 million in the last five years towards this cause, and we are looking at ways significantly to boost the research that we are supporting.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
I want to say to the hon. Gentleman that I know that the whole House shares my sympathies and my sorrow for his loss, and we sympathise also with his entire family. I know that his experience is one, as he rightly said, that has been shared by far too many families up and down the country. That is why, as soon as it is right to do so, as soon as it would not be an irresponsible diversion of the energies of the key officials involved, we are of course committed to an inquiry, to learn the lessons, to make sure that something like this can never happen again.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I hope very much that the Football Association will have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said and that they will do what they can. I look forward to 17 May, when spectators, according to the road map, may return.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to do whatever we can to meet the hon. Gentleman and take the matter forward, but the Dutch Government, I am told, have confirmed they will allow the continued supply of Bedrocan oil against UK prescriptions until at least the summer—
The Prime Minister
Until July, as the hon. Gentleman says. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is working to find a permanent solution and I have no doubt that he will be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) [V]
Given the past 12 months I, like many others, would not want the job of Prime Minister, even for all the tea in China. However, the job does give opportunities to directly improve the lives of people who are very, very sick. March is Brain Tumour Awareness Month and over 100,000 people have signed a Brain Tumour Research petition calling for the Government to match brain tumour research funding with that for other devastating cancers. We know from covid that properly funded research really can bring improved care, treatment and a cure. Will my friend the Prime Minister meet me to receive the petition, when it is safe to do so?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he is doing to champion research into brain cancer. I know, from activists in my constituency, where Centre of Hope runs the Hillingdon brain tumour and injury group, how vital it is, because too often people do not appreciate the number of people who are the victims of brain tumours. We have put another £40 million into brain tumour research and we are certainly going to put more. I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the case. My deepest sympathies are with Danielle and her family. I will make sure that the relevant Health Minister meets her to discuss the case as fast as possible.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) [V]
Forty years on from my predecessor Dame Peggy Fenner’s opposition to the closure of Chatham dockyard, with the loss of thousands of jobs, I am now opposing the closure of what today is Chatham docks, with the loss of over 1,000 skilled jobs. Closing this regionally important asset, home to successful maritime and construction businesses—all growing, in spite of covid—to make way for flats represents short-term profit for the landowner at the expense of long-term economic and environmental benefit. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me, local councillors and the “Save Chatham Docks” campaign that coastal infrastructure plays a significant role in the growth of our local economies, creating jobs and clean maritime technology that contributes to our net zero ambition?
The Prime Minister
Yes. One of the reasons we put £24 billion into defence alone is that it drives 400,000 jobs around the country, including the building of new frigates and new ships of all kinds. I hope very much that Chatham will benefit from the £100 million funding we put in on 24 December to rejuvenate coastal towns. The planning issue my hon. Friend raises is a matter for the local council, but I do hope a solution can be found that gives the benefits that she describes for the local community.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
In addition to the £3.5 billion of investment that we have provided to remediate the cladding and the £1.6 billion that we have already done, we are providing a new scheme for leaseholders in the lower-risk buildings of, I think, the kind that the hon. Gentleman is describing, to pay for unsafe remediation over the long term. There will also be a new levy and tax on developers, so that they also contribute to the remediation costs.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
Before the Prime Minister became Prime Minister, we had a discussion to do with the prescribed medical use of cannabis, and how it was helping to save really seriously ill children—not hundreds or thousands, but about 150. We changed the law in November 2018 to make it legal for those prescriptions to be written by top consultants. Today, we have three children who have it free on the NHS, and about 150 children whose families have to beg and borrow and remortgage their homes so that they can pay about £2,000 a month. I say to the Prime Minister that this is wrong. As a father, like I am, we would do everything possible for our families, and these families are doing everything possible for their children. Can we have a follow-up meeting to the one in 2018, where I will bring one of the mothers who gets it free—not to stop her getting it free, but to explain to the Prime Minister how wrong it is that children’s lives are going to be lost if we have to go through the process that the NHS is proposing?
The Prime Minister
This is the second time I have been asked about this; I thank my right hon. Friend very much, and he is right to raise it. We will make sure that we have a proper meeting with the Department of Health so that we can resolve the issue of how to make sure that the supply of the Bedrocan or the cannabis-based products that are coming from Holland can be made secure, and can continue.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) [V]
To paraphrase the late, great, much missed Eric Forth, I believe in individual freedoms and individual responsibility. I believe that individuals make better decisions for themselves, their families and their communities than the state makes for them. I loathe the nanny state, and I believe in cutting taxes. Prime Minister, am I still a Conservative?
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
Not only was this the first Government to create a Veterans Minister specifically with a charge of looking after veterans, and not only have we invested in them, but we have taken steps to protect our armed services veterans from vexatious litigation, pursued by lefty lawyers of a kind sitting not a million miles away from me today, who pursue them long after they have served Queen and country and when no new evidence has been provided. We tried to protect them, we have protected them and the Labour party voted against it.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister has always enjoyed his visits to my constituency of North West Leicestershire, whether it is Ashby-de-la-Zouch on the eve of the historic referendum or Castle Rock School, Coalville last August. He will therefore be pleased, but not surprised, that Leicestershire County Council for the last three years has been the most productive county authority in the country, despite also being the lowest funded. Can my right hon. Friend assure all the residents of Leicestershire that our Conservative-controlled county council will imminently benefit from fairer funding and the Government’s levelling-up agenda so that it can continue to deliver excellent public services?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I thank Leicestershire County Council for the way it is conducting itself and for delivering value for money. That is what the elections that are coming up in May are all going to be about, and invariably these Conservatives deliver better value, deliver better services and lower taxes. That is what Leicestershire County Council has done, and I congratulate it on it. I fully agree with what my hon. Friend has said.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, in Ogmore and across Wales, the people of Wales and the Welsh Government will receive an additional £5.2 billion of resource funding, on top of the spring Budget funding of 2020-21; £800 million of the levelling up fund is going to the devolved nations; and each local authority in Wales—each local authority in Wales—will receive £125,000 in capacity funding. I look forward to working with him and with Welsh local government to deliver those improvements.
Mr Speaker
That was the final question, and I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements before we start the next business.
Petition
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I rise to present this petition on the privatisation of York Hospital’s emergency department on behalf of my constituents in York Central.
When staff working in York Hospital’s emergency department were informed that Vocare—a profit-making subsidiary of Totally Plc—wanted to take over the running of the minor injuries unit, they were deeply disturbed, not least as we are in the midst of a pandemic, in which the staff have gone to extraordinary lengths to serve my community. I therefore thank the 14,191 residents of York who in just three weeks signed a petition online and in person to state clearly that their minor injuries unit must stay in the NHS—an incredible response. I am glad that intense discussions have ensued and trust that our NHS will remain in public hands.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Government to recognise that the proposal to outsource work done by the Emergency Department of York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust is ill-conceived, poorly timed and against the interests of patients; to prevent this outsourcing to the private sector; and to revise these plans for York Teaching Hospital only when the Government has published its White Paper and subsequent Bill on NHS reorganisation.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of York Central,
The petitioners of York declare that they oppose all proposals to move access to some services at York Hospital’s Emergency Department (initial assessment, streaming and minor injury care) away from the NHS to a private company; further that the Royal College of Emergency Medicine clearly states that the Emergency Department should control the front door of the Emergency Department, not some third-party organisation; further that clinical governance have not considered how this reorganisation will disrupt patient pathways and clinical networks; further that the governance have not considered how this will impact the clinical supervision of staff and governance of patient care; further that they have not fully engaged with the clinical specialists working in this filed; further that this extends the privatisation of the NHS in a critical care facility and that such a move is not in the interests of patient care or clinical governance within the Emergency Department; further that we are managing a very difficult pandemic where there should be no distraction from the delivery of clinical services; and notes that the Health Secretary expects to bring forward a White Paper outlining a reorganisation of the NHS, which could have implications for access to Emergency Departments, the treatment of minor injuries and trauma and general practice.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Government to recognise that the proposal to outsource work done by the Emergency Department of York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust is ill-conceived, poorly timed and against the interests of patients; to prevent this outsourcing to the private sector; and to revise these plans for York Teaching Hospital only when the Government has published its White Paper and subsequent Bill on NHS reorganisation.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002654]
New Plan for Immigration
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
I wish to make a statement on our new plan for immigration. The Government have taken back control of legal immigration by ending free movement and introducing a points-based immigration system. We are now addressing the challenge of illegal migration head-on.
I am introducing the most significant overhaul of our asylum system in decades—a new, comprehensive, fair but firm long-term plan—because while people are dying we have a responsibility to act. People are dying at sea, in lorries and in shipping containers, having put their lives into the hands of criminal gangs that facilitate illegal journeys to the UK. To stop the deaths, we must stop the trade in people that causes them.
Our society is enriched by legal immigration. We celebrate those who have come to the UK lawfully and have helped to build Britain. We always will. Since 2015, we have resettled almost 25,000 men, women and children seeking refuge from persecution across the world—more than any other EU country. We have welcomed more than 29,000 close relatives through refugee family reunion and created a pathway to citizenship to enable over 5 million people in Hong Kong to come to the UK. Nobody can say that the British public are not fair or generous when it comes to helping those in need, but the British public also recognise that for too long parts of the immigration system have been open to abuse.
At the heart of our new plan for immigration is a simple principle: fairness. Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, not the ability to pay people smugglers. If someone enters the UK illegally from a safe country such as France, where they should and could have claimed asylum, they are not seeking refuge from persecution, as is the intended purpose of the asylum system; instead, they are choosing the UK as their preferred destination and they are doing so at the expense of those with nowhere else to go.
Our system is collapsing under the pressures of parallel illegal routes to asylum, facilitated by criminal smugglers. The existence of parallel routes is deeply unfair, advantaging those with the means to pay smugglers over those in desperate need. The capacity of our asylum system is not unlimited, so the presence of economic migrants, which these illegal routes introduce, limit our ability to properly support others in genuine need of protection. This is manifestly unfair to those desperately waiting to be resettled in the UK. It is not fair to the British people either, whose taxes pay for vital public services and for an asylum system that has skyrocketed in cost—it is costing over £1 billion this year.
There were more than 32,000 attempts to enter the UK illegally in 2019, with 8,500 people arriving by small boat in 2020. Of those, 87% were men and 74% were aged between 18 and 39. We should ask ourselves: where are the vulnerable women and children that this system should exist to protect? The system is becoming overwhelmed: 109,000 claims are sitting in the asylum queue. Some 52,000 are awaiting an initial asylum decision, with almost three quarters of those waiting a year or more. Some 42,000 failed asylum seekers have not left the country, despite having had their claim refused.
The persistent failure to enforce our laws and immigration rules, with a system that is open to gaming by economic migrants and exploitation by criminals, is eroding public trust and disadvantaging vulnerable people who need our help. That is why our new plan for immigration is driven by three fair but firm objectives: first, to increase the fairness of our system, so we can protect and support those in genuine need of asylum; secondly, to deter illegal entry into the UK, breaking the business model of people smugglers and protecting the lives of those they endanger; and, thirdly, to remove more easily from the UK those with no right to be here. Let me take each in turn.
First, we will continue to provide safe refuge to those in need, strengthening support for those arriving through safe and legal routes. People coming to the UK through resettlement routes will be granted indefinite leave to remain. They will receive more support to learn English, find work and integrate. I will also act to help those who have suffered injustices by amending British nationality law, so that members of the Windrush generation will be able to obtain British citizenship more easily.
Secondly, this plan marks a step change in our approach as we toughen our stance to deter illegal entry and the criminals who endanger life by enabling it. To get to the UK, many illegal arrivals have travelled through a safe country such as France, where they could and should have claimed asylum. We must act to reduce the pull factors of our system and disincentivise illegal entry. For the first time, whether people enter the UK legally or illegally will have an impact on how their asylum claim progresses and on their status in the UK if that claim is successful. We will deem their claim as inadmissible and make every effort to remove those who enter the UK illegally having travelled through a safe country first in which they could and should have claimed asylum. Only where removal is not possible will those who have successful claims, having entered illegally, receive a new temporary protection status. This is not an automatic right to settle—they will be regularly reassessed for removal —and will include limited access to benefits and limited family reunion rights. Our tough new stance will also include: new maximum life sentences for people smugglers and facilitators; new rules to stop unscrupulous people posing as children; and strengthening enforcement powers for Border Force.
Thirdly, we will seek to rapidly remove those with no right to be here in the UK, establishing a fast-track appeals process, streamlining the appeals system and making quicker removal decisions for failed asylum seekers and dangerous foreign criminals. We will tackle the practice of meritless claims that clog up the courts with last-minute claims and appeals—a fundamental unfairness that lawyers tell me frustrates them, too—because for too long, our justice system has been gamed. Almost three quarters of migrants in detention raised last-minute, new claims, or challenges or other issues, with over eight in 10 of these eventually being denied as valid reasons to stay in the UK. Enough is enough. Our new plan sets out a one-stop process to require all claims to be made upfront—no more endless, meritless claims to frustrate removal; no more stalling justice. Our new system will be faster and fairer and will help us better support the most vulnerable.
Our new plan builds on the work already done to take back control of our borders, building a system that upholds our reputation as a country where criminality is not rewarded, but which is a haven for those in need. There are no quick fixes or shortcuts to success, but this long-term plan, pursued doggedly, will fix our broken system.
We know that Members of the Opposition would prefer a different plan—one that embraces the idea of open borders. Many of them were reluctant to end free movement, with Members opposite on record as having said that all immigration controls are racist or sexist. And to those who say we lack compassion, I simply say that while people are dying, we must act to deter these journeys, and if they do not like our plan, where is theirs?
This Government promised to take a common-sense approach to controlling immigration, legal and illegal, and we will deliver on that promise. The UK is playing its part to tackle the inhumanity of illegal migration and, today, I will press for global action at the G6. I commend this statement to the House.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her statement and for advance sight of it. She said in her statement that the asylum system is broken, and she talked about a persistent failure of the rules. They are stark admissions for a Conservative Home Secretary whose party has been in power for 11 years.
The truth is, we have seen Conservative failure across the board. The Home Secretary mentioned the Windrush generation, while this Government presides over a compensation scheme that their own figures show has helped only 338 people. Then there is the asylum processing system, which is appallingly slow. The share of applications that received an initial decision within six months fell from 87% in 2014 to just 20% in 2019. There is no point blaming others. This is the fault of Conservative Ministers and a failure of leadership at the Home Office, and there has not been the progress we need on the promised agreement with France on dealing with appalling criminal gangs and rises in the horrific crime of human trafficking.
Yes, the Government policy is defined by a lack of compassion and a lack of competence, and I am afraid that the plans outlined by the Government today look like they are going to continue in exactly the same vein. No wonder the plans outlined have been described as “inhumane” by the British Red Cross. They risk baking into the UK system the callousness, frankly, of this Government’s approach. No wonder, either, that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has expressed concerns about the Government’s understanding of international law. The Home Secretary spoke today about the importance of safe and legal routes, yet the resettlement scheme was suspended, and the Dubs scheme was shamefully closed down after accepting just 480 unaccompanied children rather than the 3,000 expected. [Interruption.] The Immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), continues to shout at me; he cannot hide from the Government’s record of the last 11 years. And the Government looked the other way last summer; rather than help children stuck in the burning refugee camp of Lesbos, they turned the other way.
At the same time, these changes risk making the situation even worse for victims of human trafficking, as it would be even harder to access help in the UK, helping criminal gangs escape justice. Ministers have abolished the Department for International Development, the very Department that helped address the forces that drive people from their homes in the first place—war, poverty and persecution.
Not only are Government plans lacking in compassion, but the Government do not even have the competence to explain how their plans would work. A central part of the measures briefed out by the Government relies on new international agreements, yet the Home Secretary could not mention one of those agreements that have been concluded this morning. Sources close to the Home Secretary have briefed out ridiculous, inhumane schemes such as processing people on Ascension Island, over 4,000 miles away, and wave machines in the English channel to drive back boats. When the Government recently briefed out plans for Gibraltar and the Isle of Man, they were dismissed within hours.
The proposals also show that the Government have not woken up to the urgent need to protect the UK against the pandemic and support our health and social care system to rebuild. We have heard the Prime Minister this week be dangerously complacent about a third wave of covid from Europe, and the threat of new variants continues to grow, yet none of the UK Government plans includes measures desperately required to protect the UK. We need world-leading border protections against covid, including a comprehensive hotel quarantine system, yet throughout this pandemic the Government have done too little, too late. The proposals do nothing to address the recruitment crisis in the health and social care system, where urgent changes are needed to help recruit the medical and social care staff to deal with covid and NHS waiting lists.
The reality is that the measures outlined today will do next to nothing to stop people making dangerous crossings, and they risk withdrawing support from desperate people. The Conservatives have undoubtedly broken the immigration system over the last 11 years, but the reality today is that they have absolutely no idea how to fix it.
Priti Patel
First, let me take the right hon. Gentleman’s distasteful comparisons to Windrush head-on. Members of the Windrush generation came to the UK lawfully to help rebuild Britain, and they were wronged by successive Governments, including Labour Governments. It is simply insulting to attempt to draw parallels between them and those entering our country unlawfully.
Not only are this Government ensuring that Windrush victims receive compensation—the compensation that they deserve—but today I am announcing new measures to fix historical anomalies in British nationality law to ensure that members of the Windrush generation can receive British citizenship more easily. That is a Conservative Home Secretary, and a Conservative Prime Minister and Government, righting these wrongs. As I have set out previously in the House, the Home Office is absolutely committed to supporting victims of the Windrush generation, and that is why today I have launched the biggest and most wide-ranging consultation when it comes to this new plan for immigration.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman commented on the record of Conservatives in government, so let me just set out some facts for him. From the expulsion of Ugandan Asians, such as my own family members, from a repressive regime; to proudly resettling more refugees than any other EU country, as he heard me say in my statement; to supporting campaigners fleeing political persecution in Hong Kong—that is the record of Conservatives when it comes to humanitarianism. Under the Conservative leadership of this Government, the United Kingdom will always provide sanctuary to people who are having the light switched off on their own liberty and personal freedoms, and this new plan will build on that.
Thirdly, I am quite astonished by the tone of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, repeatedly suggesting that we just turn a blind eye to people attempting to come into our country illegally—people being smuggled in small boats and in the back of lorries. He will well know that we in this House have stood too often to hear about the tragedy of people who have died, whether in the channel or the back of refrigerated lorries. I will not apologise for being abundantly clear that an illegal journey to the UK is not worth the risk. That is what this plan is about: tackling illegal migration, protecting lives, and, of course, alongside that creating new routes.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman accuses me and the Government of lacking compassion. He accuses me of taking an inhumane approach. I suggest politely to him that he should not resort to personal attacks of that nature. I, and my own family in particular, understand what oppression is like and, after fleeing persecution, sought refuge in the United Kingdom, just like millions of others who have successfully rebuilt their lives. That lack of substance is not surprising, because the Labour party has no plans to fix the broken system. In fact, I understand that last night, the Labour party’s response to my plan was very much to look at my plan. As long as Labour Members are devoid of a plan of substance, they are defending a broken system that is encouraging illegal migration and supporting criminality. They are defending a system that is enabling an established criminal trade in asylum seekers, and causing human misery. It is a system that disregards the world’s most vulnerable, elbowing women and children to the side. It is a system that all too often, as I have seen, results in the tragic loss of life.
A family of five drowned on their way to this country—our country—only last year; in 2019, 39 victims were found dead in Purfleet in the back of a refrigerated lorry. That is inhumane. If the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party are prepared to be associated with that criminal trade in asylum seeking and human misery, he is the one who lacks compassion. That is not a position that we will take, and I will not be complicit in defending the indefensible on that basis.
Finally, it is extraordinary to hear lectures about our border from the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party, when it is still official Labour party policy to maintain and extend free movement rights, as per its party conference motion. In effect, that is to have open borders. We are the only party that is prepared to tackle illegal migration, show compassion to those who have been trafficked in the world, and create safe and legal routes, so that we help to save lives.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con) [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement because, just like my constituents, I am angry at the images we are seeing of small boats coming into the channel, and the skyrocketing costs of our asylum system—resources that could be used to tackle inequalities in areas such as the “lost city” in Tipton, and give kids on that estate the chances to succeed. The broader issue is this: our European neighbours need to step up. It is as simple as that. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents in Wednesbury, Oldbury and Tipton, who have put their faith in her, that she will continue to make the point to our European neighbours that they have got to step up? It is not fair on the United Kingdom to take the lion’s share of protecting some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are a compassionate nation, and we stand by everything we do when it comes to providing humanity and protection to individuals who are being persecuted. He has made the point incredibly well on behalf of his constituents, and we will continue—as I will today with the G6, our international counterparts, and across European Union member states—to say that they also need to do more. Until they do, people will continue to die. We all have this collective responsibility.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]
There is so much wrong with these proposals that distilling it into two minutes is impossible. What person and what Government with an ounce of compassion or respect for international law would even consider casting vulnerable people off to an island using an offshoring system that, in Australia’s case, has been described by the UN as an affront to “common decency”? Who, with any regard to the rule of law, would limit the right to appeal? The high success rate of asylum appeals clearly shows that the Home Office is getting these decisions wrong too often.
Are we or are we not still a signatory to the UN refugee convention? Is the Home Secretary aware of article 31, which prohibits penalising someone for the way in which they reached a country or, for that matter, arriving so-called illegally? Does she know that nowhere in there does it say that someone cannot transit through another country to get here? That was never the intention of the convention, and to say it is is simply untrue. Does she remember that Nicholas Winton—rightly hailed as a hero for rescuing hundreds of children from Nazi refugee camps—was reported to have forged documents because the Home Office was too slow? Those children would today be classed as illegal and he would be a criminal, but he was a hero, because he recognised that desperate people have no choice, and the same is true today for many who reach our shores.
The Home Secretary should be ashamed to make this statement today. There is nothing pretty about this—it is ugly dog-whistle politics, and I can tell her that the SNP wants no part in it. More importantly, Scotland will not live with the associated shame of this. Scotland recognises its international and moral obligations, but we also recognise that we are prevented by the UK Government from living up to them. I despair for those having to live under this toxic environment, and I will always offer my solidarity, but I will also work even harder to ensure that Scotland votes yes to independence, so that we at least can continue to treat vulnerable people with compassion and dignity.
Priti Patel
First, I refer the hon. Lady to my statement. If she had bothered to listen to it, she would have heard a compelling case for stopping people trafficking, stopping illegal migration and creating safe and legal routes—something that I would have thought she would warmly welcome.
Secondly, it seems to me that the nationalist party in Scotland needs to do much more to walk the talk when it comes to resettling refugees and working with the Government to house individuals who are fleeing persecution. Sadly, that work is not taking place—[Interruption.] I can see that the hon. Lady is making some gestures towards me. If she would like to come into the Home Office and have discussions about resettlement schemes and routes in constituencies, I would be more than happy to look at that. Our Ministers would be delighted to welcome her into the Department for that conversation.
Finally, the hon. Lady speaks about our plans not being in line with the refugee convention. Again, I would like to correct her. Our new plan for immigration is in line with our international obligations, including the refugee convention. She will know that the refugee convention does allow for differentiated treatment where, for example—[Interruption.] she can shake her head, but perhaps she would like to listen—refugees have not come directly from a country of persecution.
John Howell (Henley) (Con) [V]
I welcome particularly what my right hon. Friend is proposing to deal with people smuggling, but this is a bigger problem than simply the EU. Council of Europe members are dealing with this right across the Mediterranean and from the middle east. Will she join me in sharing her approach with members of the Council of Europe as an example of what can be done?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I commend him for the work that he has been doing with the Council of Europe. In the past, we have had many conversations about this issue and about people, ways of working and upstream issues around illegal migration. He is right to highlight the issue around the Mediterranean. Too many people have died, tragically, under the most appalling circumstances. I would be more than happy to work with him on how we pursue this further.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]
Safe Passage reports increasingly long waits for child and teen refugees in camps in Greece and elsewhere to be able to reunite with family in the UK who could care for them since the Dublin and Dubs schemes were ended. Ministers promised us that they would put in place safe legal routes in replacement, but they have not done so, and things are not working. Talking about safe legal routes is not good enough if they do not materialise in practice. Does the Home Secretary not accept that, especially when it comes to vulnerable children and teenagers, a lack of safe legal routes to rejoin family will drive more of them into the arms of dangerous people traffickers and make the situation much worse?
Priti Patel
If the right hon. Lady had heard my statement, she would have heard some figures about those who are being trafficked right now. They are predominantly single men. She makes a very valid and important point, which supports the case for safe and legal routes, around children in particular. This is not just about camps in Greece, and let us not forget, of course, that we have been in a pandemic, which is part of the reason, as the right hon. Lady knows—we have discussed it at the Home Affairs Committee—and as many hon. Members know, having been reminded of it again and again and again, the Government are absolutely committed, as the record shows, to resettling children, and to family reunion rights.
That is absolutely right, and we are doing that. We are committed to that, but through safe and legal routes. We need to create new routes, and not just from the camps in Greece. The right hon. Lady will know as well—I have been to many myself—that within regions, where there are wars and conflict, we need to create safe and legal routes, and not just from the Mediterranean. Too many people have been smuggled to that Mediterranean route. We need to do much more in-country, and in some of those terrible zones. I hope that she would support this work on that basis.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend is aware, many asylum seekers are being housed in hotels in central London, and many hundreds in my constituency. Will she assure me that today’s announcement will speed up the asylum process, that those who are successful will be resettled and those who are not will be quickly returned, and that we can get the numbers in hotels down to zero?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She is well versed in this, in fact, and I thank her for the way she has worked with Ministers, and with me and the Home Office, on this issue of accommodation in her constituency. She and other Members will know that the hotel policy is very much linked to the pandemic, because we have not been able to utilise regular accommodation and dispersal accommodation, and so, along with contingency, we have been using hotels.
There is another point to make here, which is about the processes that we have to look at cases. We are going to change the end-to-end system. There is a reform package in place, including digitalisation of caseworking, faster assessments, and all sorts of work on that basis, so I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Can the Home Secretary tell us when the first refugees will be allowed to enter the UK under her new scheme, and how many will be settled each year?
Priti Patel
The right hon. Gentleman will know that today’s paper, the new immigration plan, is a consultation document. It is a Command Paper, so we are consulting and we will work with everybody who wants to work with us constructively on this. It will be subject to new legislation, and he will know the processes, but we as a Government are absolutely committed. We are already in discussion right now with partner organisations that we can work with on safe and legal routes. That is essential, because 80 million people are displaced in the world, seeking refuge. We have a moral responsibility and an obligation to do the right thing and stand by those who are fleeing persecution, while at the same time working not only other with partners but with other countries to ensure that they raise the bar too.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
This is a fantastic plan to fix our broken asylum system. The plan prioritises help to those most in need with safe and legal routes. It will stop the deaths in the channel and in lorries of people attempting illegal entry, and deter those who abuse the system and jump the queue, particularly with a new age assessment process. It also introduces new life sentences for the real criminals in all this: the people smugglers. However, my constituents will rightly ask, “When?” Can she outline the timetable for the implementation of the plan, and how they can get involved?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his constructive tone and comments. The plan is subject to consultation. It should be a people’s consultation. The British public, with the publication today, should absolutely join the consultation, and I encourage all Members to get their constituents on board. At the end of the consultation, we will obviously draft a Bill and bring it to Parliament for a second session.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]
The 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 protocol state that anyone seeking asylum should be able to claim in their intended destination or another safe country, but the Government’s new plan discriminates by distinguishing between people fleeing the same persecution based on their route or on their mode of transport. Does the Home Secretary realise that, under the new plan, trafficked women, LGBTQ people, and those fleeing political and religious persecution will be left with limited options? Rather than expanding safe and legal routes, the plan could actually leave more of those seeking family reunion at the mercy of people smugglers. The plan does not meet the needs of the most vulnerable, so can she explain how she reconciles this obvious misrepresentation of our obligations under international law?
Priti Patel
First of all, I advise the hon. Lady to actually read the immigration plan, because she will see that it is in line with international obligations, including the refugee convention. Secondly, she has spoken about categories of individuals—people seeking to flee who will be persecuted for who they are and for their values. They will, of course, be covered under our safe and legal routes scheme, so she is completely wrong in her misrepresentations.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) [V]
My constituents and I in Rother Valley welcome strong action in tackling illegal, dangerous migration. I know that my right hon. Friend and her Department are working tirelessly to bring the criminals facilitating the illegal channel crossings to justice, and to tackle this exploitative crime. Does she agree that there is no justifiable reason for migrants to be making this crossing, and putting themselves and our Border Force in danger, when staying in France remains a perfectly safe and right option for them?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I thank him for his question. People should claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. That is the point that we are making again and again. They are currently in the hands of people traffickers and smugglers, and are, quite frankly, being duped into false promises and false hope. There is no doubt whatever that we will be working with our counterparts—I have already mentioned the G6—to pursue this with greater vigour. The principle that my hon. Friend raises is fundamentally correct.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
This cynical announcement is built on the availability of safe and legal routes. This morning, the Home Secretary claimed, “We have safe and legal routes, and we have a programme called the Syrian refugee resettlement scheme”. But she will know that the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme actually finished at the end of February, as its quota was filled. There are no details of how the new UK resettlement scheme will work, so could the Home Secretary tell us how many people it will take, explain how it will operate and outline, for example, the process available to a refugee from what is currently the world’s worst conflict, in Yemen?
Priti Patel
I will not take any lectures from hon. Gentleman about resettlement schemes, when this Government have successfully resettled 25,000 people through that resettlement scheme—[Interruption.] He shakes his head, but it is true. I have made it quite clear that we are in discussion with partner agencies already. That work is under way. He can shake his head and be as dismissive as he chooses to be, but if he bothered to read the new immigration plan, he would see the details of exactly how we will start to introduce new safe and legal routes through legislation.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Yarl’s Wood detention centre in my constituency was set up under a Labour Government in 2001, and is a manifestation of the historical weaknesses of our immigration processes and, in particular, how they have failed women. As my right hon. Friend knows, women asylum seekers are more likely to be individually targeted as victims of gender-based violence, forced marriage—sometimes to very powerful people—or rape as an instrument of war. Will my right hon. Friend please assure me that her reforms will provide a fairer and more effective assessment of such cases?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this is why we have to fix the system. We are currently not able to safeguard and protect those who absolutely need that help and support. The categories that the plan covers include women—women who have been treated abhorrently, quite frankly, in conflict zones, as well as those who have been trafficked and who have had had the most awful crimes undertaken against them. Some of these women are also used in modern-day slavery; how we protect victims of that is also a feature of the new immigration plan. My hon. Friend is absolutely right and we will definitely be looking at all of that.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
Now that the Home Secretary is planning on deporting even more asylum seekers than previously, will she address the lack of transparency in the content and scope of the UK Government’s existing returns and readmission agreements, as well as those under negotiation? Will she give an undertaking to remedy that lack of clarity and to publish the agreements for scrutiny? Will she also confirm that it is not the Government’s intention to send people back to countries where there is a real risk that they will face torture or inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment?
Priti Patel
I am always interested in the hon. and learned Lady’s comments, particularly in the light of the way in which she caucuses and campaigns against flight removals, for example, as we have seen previously when we have tried to remove foreign national offenders—some of the most murderous people, with awful criminal records—from our country. Of course I can guarantee that we will not be removing people to the parts of the world to which she has referred, but I would also say that we are clear on the removal processes that we have, the categories of individuals we remove, and the reasons why we remove them from the UK. They are predominantly those who have failed in their claims, but alongside them are many foreign national offenders, who simply should not remain in our country.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
May I start by saying that I, along with the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, warmly welcome this new plan to fix our broken system? Currently, the UK is one of the only countries in Europe not to use scientific age assessment to determine a person’s age when they enter the country. I am sure many hon. Friends and Members from across this House will have heard the stories of fully grown adults coming to the UK but claiming asylum as children. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that this statement will solve a very serious safeguarding risk for our young people?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend raises such an important question. It is sobering, because over the years we have seen too many cases of adults posing as children. That is unscrupulous behaviour, and I say that because of the safeguarding risks that my hon. Friend highlights. He is right about the UK being one of the only countries; in Europe, they use scientific age assessment methods to determine a person’s age. Between 2016 and 2020, where age has been disputed and resolved 54% of the people involved were found to be adults, which presents a very serious safeguarding risk to our young people.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
This Government have form for lack of compassion towards those who have fled horrors that we can only imagine, from abandoning the Dubs child refugee scheme to the broken system that is leaving asylum seekers in limbo for months, if not possibly years, and their having to go to food banks because even the minimal support they are entitled to often is not arriving. So how can my constituents have any faith in this Government and whether they have one iota of compassion?
Priti Patel
As I have said, I am simply not going to take lectures about the lack of compassion from the hon. Lady or the Labour party at all. I have been abundantly clear about the reasons we have to tackle this system. She may be interested to know that there is not a single solution here; this is about end-to-end reform of the system. I know it might be an uncomfortable truth for her, but this does actually mean tackling the backlog of cases, tackling the people smugglers and stopping the criminal trade in human misery. I am only sorry that she cannot see that, because the way in which we demonstrate compassion is by fixing the system and supporting those who are in desperate need to come here.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) [V]
I welcome the measures my right hon. Friend has laid out today, which will be warmly welcomed by my constituents, who just want to see a fairer system, both for people in genuine need and for UK taxpayers. The most obvious example of that unfairness is the exploitation of people who are paying human traffickers just to be pushed out into the channel in a dinghy, particularly when they are coming from a safe country. Will she confirm that these measures are intended to ensure that these crossings are no longer worth the risk and that she will be t increasing penalties available to law enforcement to be able to tackle people smugglers head on?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; as I have said in my statement, we need to break this trade. That is vital, because people are being used in such an appalling way and human misery is being created. I have outlined already the increases in sentences that we will be looking at—not only sentences for facilitators and people smugglers, but the new powers we will be looking to give Border Force.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Immigration is the most defining issue of a Government’s character: do they reach out to protect the most challenged people on earth or turn in on themselves? When a Government do not secure safe passage for people seeking asylum to come to the UK, criminal gangs will exploit them. Will the Home Secretary update the House on what steps she is taking to ensure that her policy is not just about building higher walls for people to climb over, but opening safer doors for people to walk through?
Priti Patel
I suggest that the hon. Lady reads the “New Plan for Immigration”, because it is spelt out in there.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Our present asylum system is a complete joke. Every young man living in misery in a failed state knows that if he manages to reach our shores, the chances of his being deported are virtually zero. There is no point in introducing more and more penalties and laws unless we are prepared to deport people. Is the Home Secretary prepared to do what Prime Minister Abbott of Australia did? He ensured that all arrivals were put in a secure location and left there until their claims were assessed and then either deported or allowed to stay, and there are now no unsafe arrivals in Australia, no deaths and no criminal gangs. That policy works. Is the Home Secretary prepared to be really tough in order to be kind?
Priti Patel
As I have outlined already for my right hon. Friend, this proposal is a long-term plan and it needs to be addressed in the component parts that I have outlined. For example, the legal system that we have here, which frustrates deportations and removals, is a very different system from the one in Australia. This is a fair but firm system because we have to be firm in terms of removing those that have exhausted all their rights and should not be here. This equally applies to foreign national offenders, which is part of the reason that I have outlined already in the new immigration plan.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
The Home Secretary has spoken of efforts to strike agreements with countries outside Europe, with the intention of returning legitimate asylum seekers simply because of their method of arrival in the UK. It is likely that those countries will be the same ones that we will seek trade deals with in the post-Brexit environment, so will the Home Secretary tell us what discussions she has had with colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Department for International Trade about how those third-country agreements will impact on trade negotiations?
Priti Patel
Let me assure the hon. Lady that this is not just a Home Office policy. This is a policy across Government. She will already have heard me speak about the Ministry of Justice and resetting the judicial framework, and we will work with the FCDO on removals. That is always something that we have done in the Home Office, and we will continue to work with them when it comes to our bilateral agreements on returns and removals.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Like the overwhelming majority of my North West Durham constituents, I want to see genuine refugees protected with safer legal routes so that we do not see people dying in the channel or in lorries, but my constituents also want to see the vultures—the people smugglers who peddle in human misery and the lawyers who spin out cases at the cost of hundreds of millions of pounds to the tax- payer every year—stopped. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this plan will help genuine refugees and also take on those who seek to abuse the current system?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When he looks at the new plan, he will see a chapter in the policy paper on the judicial reset that is required when it comes to the immigration tribunal, immigration bail and the appeals process. We will streamline that and we will also deal with the wasted costs that British taxpayers are paying for. We want to use that resource to ensure that the money is going to those who are in need and not just to those who are gaming the system.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. I agree that those seeking asylum must do so in the appropriate way and that those who smuggle illegal immigrants must face the full extent of the justice system. However, I have a concern over the role of children in these situations. A child has no say over whether they are brought over legally or illegally, so will the Home Secretary outline what special circumstances will be in place when it comes to children and minors, who are totally innocent of deceit or of trying to play the system?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman makes such an important point about vulnerability, and children in particular. We need to find the right way in which we can safeguard them, and that is exactly the work that we are going to undertake with partner agencies to look at bringing them not just from camps in Europe, because Europe is a safe continent, but in particular from those parts of the world where we are seeing the most appalling levels of conflict, instability and persecution.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I very much welcome the package of measures that my right hon. Friend has brought forward today, particularly the maximum life sentences for people smugglers. So that there can be no wriggle room in the justice system when these abhorrent criminals face justice, will she also look at introducing a very high minimum sentence so that the message goes out loud and clear that this is unacceptable and that those people will face the full force of the law in this country?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, because we have to have the right sanctions and deterrents in place so that these people smugglers’ model is broken up. Of course, that will be part of the consultation and I will absolutely work with my hon. Friend and others on the whole proposal.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
It is shocking to see some of the overcrowded and squalid accommodation, including in military barracks, that is used to house asylum seekers. Safe accommodation for vulnerable people is critical in any compassionate and effective asylum system, but particularly in the middle of a pandemic. How does the Home Secretary plan, in her reforms, to improve the quality of housing for people seeking asylum?
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady will absolutely know that in terms of the contingency accommodation that we have had to use because of the pandemic we have looked at all sorts of options. On accommodation going forward, we use dispersed accommodation, and I come back to the point about working with local authorities, which will be part of our discussions and consultations going forward. It is vital that we grow that footprint and I would be more than happy for the hon. Lady to work with us in coming up with alternative proposals on accommodation.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I warmly welcome the proposals announced today, as will, I know, my constituents and those of the other south- coast constituencies in particular. I especially welcome the distinction between those people who are wealthy enough to pay to be illegally smuggled into this country and those genuine refugees who go through the right processes.
On safe and legal routes, will my right hon. Friend assure me that the successor to Dublin will be at least as generous as Dublin in respect of the relatives it covers, and that the process will be much more speedy in getting people who are deemed to have a place in the UK here as soon as possible? Will she also consider a Dubs II scheme? The Dubs scheme was so successful in rescuing genuine endangered children from danger spots around the world—it worked so well.
Priti Patel
I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further. We need to get this right in terms of safeguarding children, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Not only that, but we need to learn the lessons of previous schemes and look at how we can strengthen some of the aspects around resettlement, for example, that may not have been strong enough. I would be more than happy to have a conversation with my hon. Friend about it.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
Instead of taking action to fix a broken and uncaring immigration system, the Government seem intent on abandoning their long-standing humanitarian obligations, including the 1951 UN refugee convention. Does the Home Secretary accept that the Government’s failure to improve the range of safe and legal routes to the UK will in fact push more people into the hands of people traffickers and increase the likelihood of tragedy in the English channel?
Priti Patel
I am quite surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s statements and comments, bearing in mind that he has not even had a look at the plan itself—that is quite clear to see—because to do nothing is not an option, because people are dying. The proposals are in line with the refugee convention, within international law and within the ECHR, so I recommend that rather than shaking his head the hon. Gentleman reads the proposals and joins us in wanting to stop illegal people smuggling and to save lives.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s determination to prevent illegal crossings and tackle the scourge of people smuggling. Does she agree that there is no justifiable reason for migrants to cross the channel and put lives at risk when France remains a perfectly safe option for them?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is absolutely the point: France and other countries across the EU member states are safe countries. People are not fleeing persecution in those countries and they should and could claim asylum in those countries. That is effectively what we need to work harder to achieve.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
In her statement, the Secretary of State said:
“We celebrate those who have come to the UK lawfully and have helped to build Britain.”
Will she assure us that while those people are awaiting the Home Office processing their claims, they are enabled to contribute to the economy of the United Kingdom by working and paying income tax and national insurance, rather than having to subsist on the meagre handouts that barely allow them to eat?
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady will be well aware of the rules in place for asylum seekers currently in the UK. If I may say so, I remind the House that we are in a pandemic, so there are restrictions in terms of accommodation, movements and things of that nature. If the hon. Lady would like to be refreshed on those rules, I would be more than happy to drop her a line.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
One of the most common things that I hear on the doorsteps in Carshalton and Wallington is frustration about an immigration and asylum system that simply does not work, so I know that people will warmly welcome the firm but fair plan set out by my right hon. Friend. Will she assure me that this plan will both tackle the criminal gangs that exploit vulnerable people and help to reduce the dangerous attempts to cross the channel in small boats, in favour of safe and legal routes?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know he has raised concerns about this issue in the past. We have to break up the criminal trade in human misery. We will continue to do everything possible through the reforms that we are proposing today, which will go to public consultation, and then we want to bring in new legislation to achieve the outcomes that we are outlining.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I have always believed that we have a duty to meet our international obligations in a fair, firm and humanitarian way, but the current system is failing on all three of those. It is important that we draw the distinction between legal migration, refugees, victims of people trafficking, and illegal immigration: they are all very different things. The Home Office has announced plans to introduce tougher age assessments. Can the Home Secretary confirm to the House that these new assessments will be sensitive to disabilities, trauma and medical needs, as well as being carried out with dignity and respect?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman makes some valid points about not just age assessments, but the categories of vulnerability that we are speaking about. We are launching a consultation today that he will be aware of, and it is absolutely right that we give all due consideration to the different needs of individuals, as well as the circumstances and the situations that they are fleeing.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Never before have we had a Home Secretary who has shown such determination to finally get a grip of our failed and broken asylum system, and she deserves immense credit for this statement. The residents of Blackpool are sick and tired of the delaying tactics used by left-wing human rights lawyers to prevent the lawful removal of failed asylum seekers. As a nation, we need to do far more to ensure that those who do not have a right to stay in the UK are deported. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that the measures outlined today will help to achieve that?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on this. This is a very significant part of the frustrations with the system, and in fact, far too many predecessors in the Home Office have spoken about this as well. The reforms that we are outlining will mean a reset of the judicial frame- work around not just illegal migration, but immigration: courts, bails, tribunals, and legal aid. We absolutely need to grip this and bring about changes that will give justice to individuals who need the protection and support that we want to give them.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement today, and for responding to questions from the 30 Members on the call list. We will now suspend for three minutes for the usual arrangements.
Liverpool City Council
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about Liverpool City Council.
Merseyside police have been carrying out an investigation involving a significant link with Liverpool City Council. Last year, this led to arrests on suspicion of fraud, bribery, corruption, misconduct in public office and witness intimidation. On 17 December, I informed the House that, additionally, persuasive evidence had been presented to me regarding the council’s planning, highways, regeneration, property management functions and associated audit and governance arrangements.
In light of that evidence, I commissioned Max Caller to conduct a best value inspection of the council. I want to thank Max and his assistant inspectors, Vivienne Geary and Mervyn Greer, for their thorough and evidence-based review. I have today placed a copy of their report in the Library of the House.
The report paints a deeply concerning picture of mismanagement, the breakdown of scrutiny and accountability, and a dysfunctional culture, putting the spending of public funds at risk and undermining the city’s economic development. The report identifies multiple apparent failures by Liverpool City Council in complying with its best value duty. This includes: a failure of proper and due process across planning and regeneration, including a worrying lack of record keeping—indeed, documentation had sometimes been created retrospectively, discarded in skips, or even destroyed—a lack of scrutiny and oversight across highways, including dysfunctional management practices, no coherent business plan, and the awarding of dubious contracts; a failure of proper process relating to property management, including compliance with the council’s own standing orders, leading to a continued failure to correctly value land and assets, meaning that taxpayers frequently lost out. When selling land, the report states that Liverpool City Council’s best interests were not on the agenda. There were also poor governance arrangements for council-operated companies and an overall environment of intimidation, described as one in which
“the only way to survive was to do what was requested without asking too many questions or applying normal professional standards.”
The review finds that there was a fundamental failure by members to understand and appreciate the basic standards governing those in public service and, with no regular ethics or standards committee and no means of monitoring complaints effectively, there was no established way to hold those falling below those acceptable standards to account.
As a whole, the report is unequivocal that Liverpool City Council has failed in numerous respects to comply with its best value duty. It concludes that the council consistently failed to meet its statutory and managerial responsibilities and that the pervasive culture appeared to be “rule avoidance”. It further concludes that changes need to be radical and delivered at pace, and that there was no confidence that the council itself would be able to implement these to any sensible timescale. There may also be further issues of which we are not yet aware, and the report is careful not to speak to matters that might compromise the ongoing police investigation.
I want to underline that the report is not a verdict on all the staff working at Liverpool City Council. In fact, it commends the hard work and dedication of many. The report is also clear that the current chief executive, Tony Reeves, and statutory officers have taken positive remedial steps, and I wish to thank Tony for his dedication and service. Neither does it comment on the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, Mayor Steve Rotheram, or other councils in Merseyside.
Despite the good work undertaken by Mr Reeves, there is a clear picture showing that there has been a serious breakdown of governance at the council. If unchecked, it will allow improper conduct to persist, further undermining public confidence and putting public services at risk. It will damage the city’s ability to attract investment from reputable developers and investors for regeneration, or to take full advantage of new economic opportunities, such as the recent successful application for freeport status.
Expressed in formal terms, I am satisfied that the council is failing to comply with its best value duty. Therefore, I need to consider exercising my powers of intervention to secure compliance with the duty. To that end, in line with the procedures laid down in the Local Government Act 1999, I am writing today to the council asking it to make representations, both on the inspector’s report and on a proposed intervention package. This package is centred on putting in place commissioners, whom I will appoint to exercise certain and limited functions of the council as required for a minimum of three years.
I am also proposing that the council will, under the oversight of the commissioners, prepare and implement an improvement plan. This would require the following provisions: within six months, to approve a suitable officer structure providing sufficient resources to deliver the council’s functions in an effective way, including the improvement plan and its monitoring and reporting; within 12 months, to review and change the council’s constitution; within 24 months, to conduct a review of the roles and case for continuing with each subsidiary company of Liverpool City Council; to create a detailed structure and strategy for the highways function; to establish a plan to deliver an effective file management system; to implement a programme of cultural change, so both members and officers understand their roles, and so that the council’s activities are regulated and governed, and breaches are rectified swiftly; and to require the consent of commissioners before either member or officer level agrees heads of terms for any property transaction and subsequent consent before any legally binding commitment is entered into.
I also propose to direct that prior agreement of commissioners must be obtained to any dismissal or suspension of statutory officers or the assistant director of governance, audit and assurance, or equivalent. Furthermore, any appointments to positions designated as a statutory officer or the head of internal audit must be conducted under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, the commissioners.
I hope and expect Liverpool City Council to take the lead in this path to improvement. However, given the gravity of the inspection findings, I must consider what would happen if the council fails to deliver the necessary changes at the necessary speed. I am consequently proposing to direct the transfer of all executive functions associated with regeneration, highways and property management at the authority to the commissioners. These are for use should the council not satisfy the commissioners in their improvement processes. As I say, I hope it will not be necessary for the commissioners to use those powers, but they must, in my view, be empowered to do so to deliver the reforms that are required. The commissioners will report to me at six-monthly intervals on progress being made.
The report also considers the impact of the council’s cycle of elections, where every year is an election year, concluding that this system reduces scrutiny and inhibits long-term focus. It recommends that the council should move to “all-out elections”, and for the council’s size to be reconsidered. Accordingly, I am also proposing to use my powers under the Local Government Act 2000 to provide for Liverpool City Council to hold whole-council elections for the first time from 2023. That will be in addition to proposals for a reduced number of councillors, elected on single-member wards, which the report also recommends. I believe it would be preferable to move to a single-member ward system at the earliest available opportunity.
I am now seeking representations from the council on the report and the decisions I am proposing to take by 24 May. The forthcoming elections will proceed as planned, and the Liverpool City Mayor will be elected on 6 May; the cabinet will then have time to provide its views. If I decide to intervene along the lines I have set out today, I will then make the necessary statutory directions under the 1999 Act and appoint the commissioners, and I will update the House on any conclusions in due course.
This is a rare occasion when central intervention is required. In addition to the measures I propose today, the Government will work closely with the political, the business and the cultural leadership of the city and with the wider region, including with Steve Rotheram, the Mayor of the Liverpool city region. We will do all we can to support the city as it recovers from the covid-19 pandemic, and to give confidence to those who want to invest in the city, to contract with the council and to do business in Liverpool.
As the son and grandson of Liverpudlians, I know Liverpool and I appreciate the sense of humour, the loyalty and the warmth of its residents. I also understand the city’s independent spirit, so I am clear that we are embarking on a partnership—to mend a politics that for too long has been rooted in a pervasive and rotten culture.
I am hopeful that this is the start of a new chapter for Liverpool City Council, because in all of this it is the residents of Liverpool who are being let down, whose regeneration is being undermined, whose taxpayers’ money is being wasted and whose city is being besmirched, rather than cited with municipal pride.
Despite the rare cases like Liverpool City Council, as a whole, councils in this country have a good record of transparency, probity, scrutiny and accountability. It is a reputation worth protecting. I will take whatever steps are necessary to uphold the good name of local government and to weed out practices that do it down. I commend this statement to the House.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and the report and, indeed, for his openness with me throughout the process.
This report raises grave and serious concerns about decision making in key functions of Liverpool City Council. All councils are under an obligation to meet their best value duty to ensure value for money at all times. In these respects, Liverpool City Council has been found severely wanting. Labour, both here and our leadership at the city council, accepts this report in full. The council will respond to the letter from the Secretary of State in detail, but we support his intention to appoint commissioners, not at this stage to run the council, as he says, but to advise and support elected representatives in strengthening the council’s systems.
This is a measured and appropriate approach. I want to reassure people in Liverpool that it does not mean that Government Ministers are coming in to run their city directly. This is not, as some would put it, a Tory takeover. It is about the Government appointing independent people of the highest professional standing to help the council improve as quickly as possible, and intervening directly only if the council’s elected leaders fail to implement their own improvement plan.
Investigations are currently under way into matters raised in the report and I will not pre-empt them. I do, however, want to reiterate my party’s absolute commitment to protecting the public interest at all times and upholding the highest possible standards in public life. Given the concerns raised in this report, the general secretary of the Labour party intends to appoint a senior figure to lead a review, and reassure the people of Liverpool that the Labour party takes these concerns seriously and will take action against anyone in our ranks who was involved in wrongdoing of any kind. Our councillors in Liverpool have already met senior Labour councillors from other parts of the country who will support them in strengthening the city council’s defences against any risk of fraud.
The overwhelming majority of councillors and frontline staff will be shocked by what they read in this report. As the report and the Secretary of State have made clear, the severe institutional weaknesses identified do not obscure the outstanding work they have all done together over many years. The Prime Minister was right to praise the council’s impressive work in getting the city through the pandemic, and I want to add my thanks to everyone who continues to play a part in that. In particular, the report praises the council’s chief executive, Mr Tony Reeves, and I offer my support to him and to the acting mayor, Councillor Wendy Simon, for the work they have already started to put things right. I would also like to put on record my thanks to Mr Max Caller and his team for putting this very important report together.
This is a moment for change, and I know that everyone who cares about the great city of Liverpool and its wonderful people will accept this report and use it to strengthen the council for the future.
Robert Jenrick
Can I thank the hon. Gentleman for the remarks he has just made and for the way in which we have worked together over recent months? He has been most helpful and constructive, and I hope that can continue. I thank him on behalf of the Government for the remarks he has made with respect to the Labour party and the Labour group on Liverpool City Council, which are extremely welcome. The step we have taken today is unusual, and it is better to do it in a cross-party way. We all share the same interests, which are the delivery of public services, ensuring that the people of Liverpool get the value for money and the council that they deserve, and ensuring that the city can attract the inward investment, regeneration and good-quality development that it certainly needs and that we want to see delivered as we come out of the pandemic.
The hon. Gentleman was right—I thank him again—to highlight the praise for the chief executive, Tony Reeves, who has done an outstanding job. In my remarks earlier, I praised his conduct and that of the other statutory officers at the council. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that this report focuses on particular functions of Liverpool City Council and does not comment on the wider delivery of public services in the city by the council. There is no reason to question the delivery of adult services, children’s services or other important functions that people in the city rely on. He is also right to praise the work of many people in Liverpool, including within the city council, in their response to the covid-19 pandemic.
I would underline my remarks once again that this is a report about Liverpool City Council. It is not about the neighbouring councils across Merseyside, and neither is it any reflection on the Mayor of the Liverpool city region, Steve Rotheram, to whom I extend my thanks once again for his co-operation and support. It is right that we take this action, and I hope that we can continue to work together on it. None of us does this lightly. Localism is our objective, but localism does require local accountability, transparency and robust scrutiny, and that I hope is what we can now achieve.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I would just like to say before I call any other Members that, although a number of individuals are under investigation, I understand that there have been no charges. There is therefore no sub judice involved, but I would caution Members not to compromise any of the ongoing investigations in anything they may or may not say.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today and welcome the steps he has outlined in relation to Liverpool City Council. I welcome the steps he is taking to preserve the good name of local government, too. I regularly hear from constituents with concerns about the level of commercial activity that councils are now undertaking. Does he agree with me that some of the transactions are incredibly complicated and well beyond what councils would have traditionally been involved in, and that external audit and public scrutiny need to be reviewed and greatly improved to protect taxpayers’ interests?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We asked a lot of local councils, and we will do so once again as we come out of the pandemic. We want them to be regenerating town and city centres and investing in new housing, but we want them to do so carefully and not to invest in risky investments or transfer toxic assets from the private sector to the public sector. We have taken action as a Government through reforming the Public Works Loan Board. We are providing further guidance to local councils, including through the work of the report we commissioned from Sir Tony Redmond, to ensure that the sector improves the way it handles this situation. The allegations made against Liverpool City Council are of a different magnitude to the ones that we have seen in other parts of the country, so I do not want to draw direct comparisons, but there is more work to be done with some other local authorities as well.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]
This is clearly a very serious situation. It is obviously a very major step to take powers away from elected representatives, so I really appreciate and accept the proportionate and correct response from the Secretary of State, as well as from the shadow Secretary of State. I also appreciate the Secretary of State’s comments about the many hard-working staff in Liverpool, including the chief executive, who bear no blame for this crisis, and his comments about the generally excellent performance of local government as a whole. The Secretary of State has set out very clearly his list of requirements from the city council and by when he expects them to be met. How will monitoring against these requirements be undertaken and how will Parliament be updated about them? Of course it goes without saying that if there is anything the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee can do to assist in that process, we stand ready to do so.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to the Chair of the Committee. I would be happy to work with him should he require any further information or wish to discuss this matter further. If we go ahead with the proposal that I have made today, then the commissioners, once appointed, would report to me on a six-monthly basis and I would be happy to keep the House informed of the information they provide to me. We will ensure that there is an improvement plan in place for the city that is produced by the newly elected Mayor and their cabinet and supported by Liverpool City Council, but advised and guided by the commissioners. Then it will be absolutely essential that that plan is delivered. It will be for all of us in this House, and particularly for those Members of Parliament representing parts of Liverpool, to hold the council to account for the successful delivery of the plan. Our objective is to restore public confidence in the council as quickly as possible so that residents can have confidence that they have a well-functioning council in all respects, and so that all the legitimate businesses, developers and people wishing to contract with the council have complete confidence that Liverpool is a city open for business and they can work to drive up the city’s prosperity as we come out of the pandemic.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I praise both Max Caller, who is a superb inspector, and the Secretary of State’s decision to send in commissioners. Although the problems in Liverpool City Council are far worse, in 2018 Max Caller was sent into Northamptonshire to do a best value inspection, and subsequently the Government sent in commissioners. Since that point, under the leadership of Commissioner Tony McArdle and the new political leadership of Councillor Matt Golby, the situation in Northamptonshire County Council has been transformed and its performance has been raised beyond all expectations. Is it not the case that if councillors and officers in Liverpool City Council respond positively to the challenge set to them by the Government, public services in the city can be raised once again to the standards expected of them?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. My predecessors have used their powers of intervention very sparingly. They have done so on a small number of occasions, in Doncaster, Rotherham, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Northamptonshire. Each occasion was very different, but in most of those cases the intervention has proved successful and has turned councils around. The commissioners will behave sensitively, support the elected leadership of Liverpool City Council, and ensure that confidence is restored, public services are delivered properly, and taxpayer money is spent wisely. This now requires leadership from the politicians in Liverpool—those who will be elected in the local council elections to come. I look forward to working with them, and if we do appoint commissioners, I expect the commissioners to work with them constructively and productively at all times.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I will read the report in full today when I receive it. It has been a great honour to work alongside many Liverpool councillors and council staff who worked so tirelessly to protect the people of Liverpool before and during the pandemic and, indeed, who have been recognised for that work in this Chamber. Will the Secretary of State assure my great city and its people that this crucial work, on which so many of our constituents rely, will continue and that these vital services will be both resourced and protected?
Robert Jenrick
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. I share his thanks and his praise for many of the staff of Liverpool City Council, and for the good work over the year done by the wider health and social care sector across the region, which the Health Secretary, the Prime Minister and I have praised on many occasions. We want to ensure they continue to have resources, and we want all of government to see this as a moment in which, far from stepping away, we should redouble our efforts to support the city through a potentially difficult period.
I will be convening my Cabinet and ministerial colleagues in the coming days to reiterate that message and to ask them to do even more to support Liverpool. There has been good news in recent weeks, including from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that Liverpool was successful in its application for freeport status. That is just one example of good news and investment that I hope will take the city forward in the years to come.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It is clear that too many senior people at Liverpool City Council failed that great city during this pandemic, but it is not just Liverpool. Nottingham City Council has given its councillors a bumper pay rise, even after bankrupting the council. Durham County Council, Labour run for 102 years, is spending £50 million-plus on a new county hall on a floodplain and, at the height of the pandemic last year, it approved a new 3,500 square feet roof terrace for itself. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows it is not only in Liverpool that the Labour party has its priorities wrong and Labour councillors are putting themselves above the people they serve?
Robert Jenrick
All councils have a fundamental duty to their residents to provide good value for money. At the heart of our decision to intervene in Liverpool, and to commission Max Caller and his report, was persuasive evidence that it was falling below that standard, and that is what Max Caller has indeed concluded today. All councils need to ensure they are providing good-quality public services and are taking care with the money entrusted to them. I hope we can correct the situation in Liverpool, which has now gone on for too long, and that other councils across the country in different situations also take note and take particular care when spending the public’s money.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
I also pay tribute to the incredible staff at Liverpool City Council at this very difficult time. I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House today, and I hope he will agree to meet the five Members representing Liverpool at the earliest opportunity.
I, for one, do not doubt the seriousness of the issues that have been raised today, and I look forward to receiving a copy of the Caller report. That public resources have been put at risk is deeply worrying, because resources are needed for investment in the vital services on which my constituents depend, even more so at a time when funding has been cut year on year. Will the Secretary of State take this chance to reassure my wonderful city, and anyone concerned, that commissioners will be totally independent and their focus will be on working in the interests of the people of Liverpool?
Robert Jenrick
I certainly can. The commissioners will be appointed by me and will report to me. Their task is to support the city and its elected leadership to ensure that a good and credible improvement plan is brought forward and implemented as quickly as possible, and that the mistakes, errors and omissions of the past are put right, so that confidence can be restored to the city and the hon. Lady’s constituents can know and have confidence that they have a well-functioning city council and we can move forward as swiftly as possible.
I share the hon. Lady’s support for the city. It is a great city, and it deserves a good, functioning city council, which is exactly what we want to achieve.
John Howell (Henley) (Con) [V]
Does this sad but very welcome action not send a firm indication to all councils that we will step in where irregularities over best value, particularly in planning, occur? Will my right hon. Friend comment on his remarks about the need for whole-council elections, and does that mark a change across the whole country, in trying to rid ourselves of those councils that go for elections every year?
Robert Jenrick
The report that we have laid today makes two specific recommendations with regard to Liverpool City Council, as I outlined earlier, first recommending that we move as swiftly as possible to whole-council elections, and secondly recommending single-member wards. That recommendation will, subject to the views of those who come forward over the coming weeks, be implemented, but I agree that it has wider application. A thread that we have seen in a number of failed councils has been a lack of scrutiny and accountability for members where they have been in multi-member wards and where having elections time and again in thirds has led to a lack of scrutiny and a lack of focus in the council. I would like to see more councils take note of these recommendations and implement them.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I am a very proud Scouser, but listening to the Secretary of State read the contents of this damning report makes me angry, as it will the whole city when the report is made public. But we are a resilient city, and we will fight back from this. The city deserves a well-run council, with stronger, more transparent governance procedures, that is more able to manage public finances. Important steps have been made to right the wrongs at the council by the current chief executive, Tony Reeves, and the acting Mayor. Can the Secretary of State confirm the timetable for the proposed intervention by commissioners? Will that be reviewed and monitored, and reduced if progress is made at speed? What role will the chief executive and the elected councillors who have supported our community so well during this crisis play in rebuilding the public’s trust?
Robert Jenrick
Like her fellow Liverpool colleagues, I thank the hon. Lady for the way in which spoke. The timetable for the period ahead is that the report is now available for members of the public, colleagues in Parliament and the council to review and consider at length. The council has until 24 May to revert to me with comments and representations. We have chosen a longer than normal period, reflecting the fact that the local elections will now take place, to give the new council and the newly elected Mayor the time after the local elections have concluded to meet to consider this and make those representations to me. Once those representations have been made, I will consider them carefully and decide whether to proceed with the proposal that I have outlined today or to change it in any way, and I will then revert to the House with my final decision. If that is to appoint commissioners, we will set out the process and the names of the individuals I have chosen.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]
The allegations that my right hon. Friend describes will be familiar to many residents of Sandwell borough. As a former local councillor, I know how important it is that elected members are able to both guide and scrutinise officers. Does he think that Liverpool city councillors have been unable to do that in this instance due to lack of powers, lack of capacity or lack of capability?
Robert Jenrick
I recommend that my hon. Friend reads the report by Max Caller, which sets out his observations, having spent the last three months working in and around the council and having dozens, if not hundreds, of conversations and interviews with councillors and officers. He concludes that the council needs to raise its game substantially in respect of some officers and also some elected members; that there needs to be much greater scrutiny and accountability; that there needs to be much greater care in the way that those elected members manage public money and how they manage directly owned and operated companies that the council has chosen to use; and that it needs a greater sense of vision for the future and a business plan for its activities. There is a great deal of work ahead for those individuals who are elected in May, and I hope that they will show the leadership that is required to turn the city around. It will be a big task, but we are here to support them.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. As he knows, my constituency of Southport, although not in the Liverpool city area, is part of the Liverpool city region. Given our proximity, this situation is causing alarm to my constituents. Will he take further action to allay any fears that my constituents have about our own local authority, and will he meet me to discuss better scrutiny arrangements for local authorities such as mine to give further reassurance to constituents?
Robert Jenrick
I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend, and I should have said in answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) that I would of course be happy to meet Liverpool city Members too. I believe that they met the Local Government Minister earlier today, but I would be happy to have a further conversation with them. I should say again that this report is specific to Liverpool City Council—it is not a comment on the neighbouring councils that make up the Liverpool city region—but I understand that my hon. Friend may have concerns about his own council, and I would be happy to discuss those.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), for their statements. We all appreciate the seriousness of the situation. Clearly, we need to see real change and robust new safeguards that guarantee transparency and accountability, but the people of Liverpool must be part of that process. This week, I have been contacted by local people concerned that sending commissioners into Liverpool amounts to a takeover by Whitehall, so will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to outline to my constituents how their voice and their democratic rights will be respected?
Robert Jenrick
The elections will go ahead in May, and they will see the election of a new directly elected Mayor. They will also see new councillors elected to the council, and the cabinet appointed by the new Mayor. It is important, first, that those individuals make representations to me about the report and what they want to see happen. Depending on the ultimate course of action that I take, having listened carefully to those views, if we do choose to appoint commissioners, as I have proposed today, those commissioners will be going to Liverpool to stand behind the elected Mayor, the cabinet and the elected members of the city council—not to tell them what to do but to guide and support them.
I very much hope that the members elected by the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will rise to the occasion and drive the change and reform that is needed on the city council, and that the commissioners will never need to exercise their powers. We have given them the authority to act should they need to, given the seriousness of some of the allegations, but it is not our hope or expectation that those powers will be exercised.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), said, my party supports the seven Nolan principles on standards in public life, be it in town halls or Whitehall, underpinning the councillors’ code of conduct and the ministerial code. The Standards Board, which promoted high ethical standards in local government and oversaw the nationally imposed code of conduct, was abandoned in 2012 by the Secretary of State’s Government. Considering today’s statement, does he think that was a mistake?
Robert Jenrick
A significant piece of work has been undertaken by the Committee on Standards in Public Life with respect to the way ethics and standards are applied in local government at all levels, from parish councils, where unfortunately we do, very rarely but on occasion, see issues of misconduct, bullying and harassment, right the way up to larger councils of the scale of Liverpool City Council. I am carefully considering the committee’s views on how we should proceed, and we will respond in due course, setting out the Government’s view and the actions that we are minded to take to ensure that there are always correct processes and always routes for redress, regardless of who is at stake. I think that will provide many of the answers to the right hon. Lady’s questions.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
The report outlined by my right hon. Friend mentioned a number of very serious failings by Liverpool City Council over many years. Does he agree that, in addition to the steps being taken to improve the council’s financial position, an entirely new culture needs to be embedded at the council that puts residents and Liverpool first?
Robert Jenrick
Yes, the report is clear that a major cultural change is required at the council. Mr Caller concludes that that will require radical change both by some members and some officers, and I hope that those steps will now be taken. They are absolutely essential if we are going to restore confidence in the council. That is our objective. I am sure that it is the objective of most reasonable people in the city of Liverpool, and we will be working together to achieve it.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Having served as a local councillor, I have seen the positive difference that local government can make in our communities, despite tough financial circumstances. I know that there will be thousands of councillors and council officers going above and beyond during the pandemic—including in Liverpool—who will be shocked and saddened by the report’s findings and today’s announcement. Would the Secretary of State agree that today’s announcement is the exception, not the norm, for local government, so that we can reassure those from across all our political parties who are standing for election in May and who want to do the right thing by serving their local communities to the best of their abilities?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point; it is one that I made in my opening remarks. This is a rare intervention. Interventions of this nature have been made on only a handful of occasions in the last 20 years. We do so carefully and with a heavy heart, but because it is necessary to ensure that this council can reform and change its ways and that we can ensure that people in Liverpool get the good-quality government that they deserve. This is not a reflection on local government more generally across this country. In fact, we are taking this action to defend the good name of local government across the country, and I pay tribute to officers and councillors the length and breadth of England for the good work they do day in, day out.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), for the comments that they made in a bipartisan manner. Clearly, one of the issues of concern to Liverpool residents will be what extra costs may be borne as a result of this decision. Clearly, the commissioners may be in place for some considerable period of time, so will my right hon Friend reassure us that Liverpool council tax payers will not be picking up the costs of these commissioners, if they are duly appointed, and that if the commissioners recommend further proposals to him on expenditure, he will consider those appropriately?
Robert Jenrick
The costs of the report that has been undertaken by Max Caller and of the commissioners will be borne by Liverpool City Council. However, I expect that the work to come will save the taxpayers of Liverpool a great deal of money, because underlying the report by Mr Caller is the sense that many millions of pounds have been wasted as a result of mismanagement by the city council, and I very much hope that we can put that right.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Newspaper headlines in this kind of situation can often make it appear that a whole council or, indeed, a whole city is being traduced, so I welcome the Secretary of State’s recognition that there are a number of good people in the council doing a good job. I also welcome his emphasis on partnership moving forward because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) said, no one likes to feel that things are being done to them, and it will be much better all round if this is done in a collegiate manner.
I want to ask about transport. Many of my constituents use Merseytravel facilities to get to work and visit families. The Secretary of State did not expressly refer to that in his statement. Does he know whether that was looked at as part of this investigation?
Robert Jenrick
I do not believe that was looked at as part of this investigation. The highways function of Liverpool City Council was investigated by Mr Caller. He has made some remarks on some of its processes and contracts that have been entered into with regard to that function, but I do not believe that he has looked at the broader transport network across the Liverpool city region or made any comment one way or another on that.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I was not expecting that link. I was expecting Tim Farron, but you are clearly not Tim Farron! It has been switched again. I call Wera Hobhouse.
Wera Hobhouse
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Not so long ago, Liverpool was the European capital of culture, under the Liberal Democrats, and it is a shame to see it in its current position as a result of the failings of Labour government. I know that my council colleagues, who have a lot of experience on Liverpool City Council, will do their utmost and co-operate to turn the city around. Many of the problems in Liverpool have been caused by creating the post of Mayor, concentrating a lot of power in one hand. Will the Secretary of State make sure that the people in cities and city regions have a democratic choice on whether they want to have an elected Mayor or not, and not leave the decisions to councils and politicians?
Robert Jenrick
I hope that, given the remarks the hon. Lady has just made, she is supporting the report that Max Caller has produced and our proposed intervention, and that the Liberal Democrat group on Liverpool City Council will make similar comments to those made on behalf of the Labour group on the council by the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed). The report concludes that the issues faced by the city council are much greater than one individual and much wider than simply the role of elected Mayor, so I do not think it would be correct to say that this issue emanates from the decision to have an elected Mayor. However, the hon. Lady is correct to say that that creates a degree of concentration of power, which means that accountability and scrutiny are all the more important. I very much hope that that will be corrected as a result of the work to come.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]
I am shocked by the findings that the Secretary of State has outlined to the House today and I assure him that I will read the report extremely carefully once it is published. Does he agree that the priority now must be to protect Liverpool council tax payers’ money and the services the people of Liverpool rely on? Does he also agree that it is in the public interest to put in place effective procedures for obtaining best value in all that the council does going forward? Given that the council is to pay the costs of the interventions, as he has set out, is there an opportunity, if swift improvement is made, for the intervention to be shorter than the three years he has set out today?
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful, once again, for the constructive way in which the hon. Lady has approached this issue, like her fellow Liverpool MPs today. The intervention I am proposing is for a maximum of three years, so she is correct to say that there is no need for the commissioners, if they are put in place, to be there for that full term if progress is made faster than that. They will report to me on a six-monthly basis. We can review the matter on each of those occasions, and I will keep the hon. Lady and her colleagues fully informed of my decisions on each occasion. She is absolutely right to say that our sole interest here is the people of Liverpool, the taxpayers of Liverpool, and ensuring that their public services are delivered properly, their money is safeguarded and the city is one in which people feel complete confidence to invest, do business and work with the city council. I hope that, together, that is exactly what we can achieve.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The report concludes that the cycle of elections in Liverpool reduces scrutiny and inhibits long-term focus. Of course this problem is not just unique to Liverpool. For example, Calderdale, where I was formerly a councillor, is one of the handful of local authorities still yet to approve a local development plan, 10 years into the process. The Labour administration there kicks the can down the road from year to year because it elects in thirds. To help avoid the issues in Liverpool being replicated elsewhere, would the Secretary of State support a review of the current electoral cycle in metropolitan borough councils?
Robert Jenrick
I will give further thought to my hon. Friend’s suggestion, but I agree that it would be better for councils to move to all-out elections, and—unless there are exceptional reasons to the contrary—it would be better if councillors were elected in single-member wards. Max Caller’s report clearly makes that recommendation for Liverpool, and he had made that recommendation in the past, having witnessed dysfunctional councils with poor scrutiny and accountability in other parts of the country. It seems to be a thread running through those councils that have got into extreme difficulties. That is something we should reflect on, and I will refer to it in due course.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for responding to 20 questions. We will now suspend the House for three minutes for the sanitisation of the Dispatch Boxes.
Sitting suspended.
Bill presented
Coronavirus (No.2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dawn Butler, Rebecca Long Bailey, Clive Lewis, Caroline Lucas, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Layla Moran, Geraint Davies and Lloyd Russell-Moyle presented a Bill to make provision in connection with coronavirus; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 279).
Point of Order
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On Monday, I received a written answer from the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), to a question about operation waiting times beyond 52 weeks. The response stated that
“This information is not held in the format requested.”
Yesterday, however, the respected publication the Health Service Journal indicated that it had already received this information from NHS England. I have since received a copy of this from the Health Service Journal, and indeed, it is identical to the information I requested. I believe the hon. Member for Charnwood, who I shadow, is a diligent and courteous Minister, but this situation does require significant explanation. I had given him due notice today, and I had hoped he would be able to give us an explanation.
I should also point out that the Department has responded to me on 31 other occasions during the past year stating that it does not hold the information requested, sometimes in response to questions for which I genuinely struggle to understand why it does not have that information, one example being how many patients have been treated in Nightingale hospitals. Certainly, if I were in the Minister’s shoes, I would want to know the answer to those questions. I am therefore seeking guidance from you today, Mr Deputy Speaker, about what avenues are available when I receive answers of this nature where the Department does have, or should have, the information requested.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you, Mr Madders, for having given the Speaker’s Office notice of the point of order you have just made, and you have confirmed that you have told the Minister about it.
It is not for the Chair to comment on the accuracy or completeness of ministerial answers: we all know that that is for Ministers. However, the Government’s own Ministerial Code states that
“Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest”.
Therefore, if the Department does hold the information requested, it should provide it. I am sure that the Minister concerned will review the answer and provide further information if appropriate and available. If the hon. Gentleman remains dissatisfied with the answer, he might wish to raise the issue with the Procedure Committee, but I also ask the Whip on duty to ensure that the Minister is well informed of the response that I have just made to this point of order.
Gaming Hardware (Automated Purchase and Resale)
Wednesday 24th March 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Gaming Hardware (Automated Purchase and Resale) (No. 2) Bill 2019-21 View all Gaming Hardware (Automated Purchase and Resale) (No. 2) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) [V]
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the automated purchase and resale of games consoles and computer components; and for connected purposes.
I am sure that in the history of this Parliament, the pressing need to address the issue of scalping through legislative proposals has not been of regular concern to this House. However, I am here today to discuss this very phenomenon in its most 21st-century of interpretations, and to highlight the pressing issue of unfairness to consumers at the hands of unscrupulous scalpers and automated bot attacks.
The secondary resale market—or scalping, as it is commonly known—is worth billions in revenue to those in the automated bot industry. Scalpers manipulate and skew the supply and demand chain to create an unfair advantage in the marketplace, using bot attacks to use up basic supplies of coveted goods, such as the next generation of games consoles and computer components, then selling them on at hugely inflated prices. Experts in the field of bot mitigation and cyber-threats estimate that these kinds of organised bot groups can double their money in a matter of weeks through this practice, leaving the consumer in the position of either paying well over the manufacturer’s recommended price, or simply having to go without their desired purchase, as the bot resale site has made the games console unaffordable.
In this sense, the issue of scalping is at the heart of unfairness for the consumer. It creates frustration and disappointment, delay and disempowerment, and as things stand, there is no recourse to the law or to consumer protection. Scalping may be bad cyber-practice, and it may leave consumers short-changed, but no legislation exists at this time to curb bot enthusiasm or to protect the consumer, so the problem simply grows. The covid pandemic has provided the perfect storm for scalpers: an increase in online shopping, combined with the disruption to supply chains, has allowed increasingly well-organised and highly trained bot communities to make vast profits at the expense of the consumer. However, this issue existed long before the world was turned on its head by the global virus. Bot groups were mobilising and professionalising at an accelerated rate. They are well funded, they are technically proficient, and they are emboldened by the fact that the practice of scalping is not yet illegal.
The issue first came to my attention when constituents got in touch to complain that they were having problems accessing the Sony PlayStation 5, the Xbox Series X and associated computer components in the run-up to Christmas last year. Having waited eagerly for the latest next-generation consoles to be released, they discovered that they had been scalped, with automatic bots buying up those goods in large quantities. That caused a lot of disappointment in the wider gaming community, with customers unable to purchase goods at the end of what has been a particularly hard year for everyone.
Those consoles and computer components then reappeared on other websites and shopping portals, some with eye-watering mark-ups of as much as 170% on the original price. This is not a new phenomenon. One look at the gamers websites and magazines reveals that scalping has been a problem for quite some time. It creates a vicious cycle where gamers, desperate for their consul or game card, are willing to pay over the odds to combat the pre-arranged shortage in the market, which has been unfairly skewed. That serves only to disadvantage the consumer further and bolster the unscrupulous activities of scalpers—and so it continues.
Experts on bot mitigation, such as Netacea, predict that the situation will only worsen in 2021, not just for the games industry but widening out across goods as diverse as gym equipment, hot tubs and important services such as supermarket delivery slots even. Experts envisage both a major consumer backlash and a surge in brands stepping in to tackle the problem head on, but surely it would be better just to legislate to mitigate the worst impact of bot buying.
The issue is especially concerning given the nature of the economy at the time—depressed due to the pandemic, with job losses and precarious financial situations for both consumers and retailers. For smaller retailers, it is a double whammy, as they do not have the same means as larger companies to protect themselves against this terrible bot behaviour, but have to deal with the loss of revenue from games that are available, at a price, on the bots’ websites. This is turning into an online wild west, where bots and skilled cyber-villains have the upper hand. What hope is there for the consumer, the retailer and the games industry? It is here that we must look to the law to redress the imbalance in power and injustice.
Interestingly, there are parallels to be drawn between scalping and ticket touting. Legislation on the secondary selling of tickets, which came into law in 2018, can be used as a guide to tackle scalping. That legislation was brought in to prohibit the resale of tickets for amounts far in excess of the original price. It helped to crack down on the enormous profits being made at the expense of people looking to attend their favourite sporting, theatre or music event, and gained huge support from across the music industry, from such artists as Ed Sheeran and the Arctic Monkeys. Today, I am proposing that similar legislation be brought in to ensure that consumers can purchase gaming consoles, games and related goods at no more than the manufacturer’s recommended price, and that the resale of goods purchased by automated bots be made illegal.
I have already written to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to highlight the issue and examine the legislative options to ban the bot, or at least make some significant progress on consumer protection. This is not a scenario that can be left to the market to regulate. Nor can it be left as the sole responsibility of individual companies to monitor and take action to mitigate the power of the bots. The consumer must be at the heart of our actions to improve the experience, cost and availability for customers. Just as scalping creates an unlevel playing field in terms of purchase power for the consumer, so it also creates issues for retailers and companies that sell and make these consoles and computer parts. Even the large corporations are beginning to take notice that a knock-on effect is that fewer next-generation consoles are now being sold and that affects the new games coming on to the market, especially games that are specifically launched to coincide with these next-generation machines.
For consumers, there are additional issues around guarantees and return of faulty goods. Then there is the question of possible criminality. This is an international issue; scalpers work across borders. Questions must be asked about how they generate funds to make these large-scale purchases online. What are the profits that are generated from this? What are they used for? It could be that we are moving into the area of potential money laundering, organised crime, tax evasion and fraud.
As the House can see, this is a situation that has grown arms and legs. It is out of control and it is only going to get worse. This is not some niche issue, or even a mere annoying inconvenience. My office has been fielding inquiries and this Bill has had wide media coverage in the specialist gaming and tech publications, but also mainstream media coverage in France, Spain, the USA, Japan and, yesterday, Bangkok.
This is an opportunity for this Parliament to lead the way globally and introduce legislation that is about consumer rights, consumer protection and fairness in the marketplace. Scalpers have all the advantages. They hold all the cards and they can currently act with impunity, making huge profits in the process. Now is the time for the UK Government to take a firm stance on this cyber malpractice, to step up and act on behalf of the consumer, to draw a clear line and put in place the necessary legislation. Let us put a stop to these automated bots bulk-buying these consoles for resale. Let us act to stop the wilful scalping of virtual shoppers and end the bot monopoly. In conclusion, I say to the Government: let us put the consumer back in control.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Douglas Chapman, Ronnie Cowan, Carol Monaghan, Margaret Ferrier, Martyn Day, Drew Hendry, John Mc Nally, Steven Bonnar, Alison Thewliss and Joanna Cherry present the Bill.
Douglas Chapman accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 280).
Backbench Business
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Online Anonymity and Anonymous Abuse
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Siobhan Baillie to speak for about 10 minutes, may I inform everybody that, from then on in, we are on a three-minute limit? For those who can participate for less than three minutes, you will be doing a favour to colleagues who are lower down on the call list.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered online anonymity and anonymous abuse.
In recent weeks, we have been rightly concerned about safety in our towns and cities, yet people face danger and harassment not just in the physical world, but on the dark cyber streets and alleyways of the internet. Cowardly keyboard warriors stalk these streets and lurk in our phones. They bully with abandon, they spread racist and misogynistic abuse, they attack looks, weight, age, race, gender, disability, success as well as failure and the young and old alike. No one is safe from their violent hate. Anonymity provides the shadows where these people can hide. It facilitates and encourages online abuse.
My own experience of hate came after the birth of my daughter last year. The outpouring of venom because I took four weeks’ maternity leave was a shock. Attacking somebody for being a mum or suggesting that a mum cannot do the job of an MP is misogynistic and, quite frankly, ridiculous. But I would be lying if I said that I did not find it very upsetting, especially at a time when I could barely move and needed to work out how to feed my new baby. Other people have suffered more—from death and rape threats to all forms of intimidation and harassment in between. Nobody should have to put up with that. Seeing the bravery with which others have confronted this menace has prompted me to campaign for change, and I am not alone.
The racism and abuse levelled at footballers is no longer from the terraces. Many England players who will run out for us tomorrow night have suffered unspeakable racist abuse. I fully support Harry Maguire’s calls for verified identification. I have spoken to the FA’s excellent Kick It Out, which has superb goals for social media companies to create robust and swift measures to take down abusive material, and for investigating authorities swiftly to identify the originators.
Katie Price launched a petition only a few weeks ago that already has over 160,000 signatures.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing today’s debate on this incredibly important issue. Will she join me in paying tribute to Katie, who is my constituent? She is a mum battling for her disabled son who is often abused online. Her petition makes the very sensible proposal to end online anonymity. No one has a right to a cloak to conceal their actions of harm. Both Katie’s petition and my hon. Friend’s own great work in this area deserve the support of the whole House.
Siobhan Baillie
I thank my hon. Friend; it was very kind of him to set up a meeting between me, Katie and her mum Amy. We talked about her experiences of the trolls. What they have been through is absolutely heartbreaking. Harvey has been subject to the most vile abuse, which I actually cannot bring myself to say. This has gone on his whole life. The strength with which he and his family have endured these issues is remarkable. Any mother would want to protect her children and we must arm parents with the tools to do just that.
In Stroud, a robust military veteran has had years of deliberate online attempts to ruin his business and reputation. It has nearly broken him mentally at times. The Facebook page that attacks him has a spare one in case the first gets taken down. Another constituent has endured years of stalking and harassment. She is a retired social worker. She has found the police ill equipped to deal with such fast-moving tech, and even when the perpetrators put a picture of her garage door up online—indicating they knew where she lived—she still felt unprotected. A Gloucestershire journalist was recently told by an anonymous loon that she is single because she
“is self absorbed and looks like a slut”.
I have done enough domestic violence work as a lawyer to know that such attitudes and language are a short hop, skip and jump to violence.
Of course, not all online nastiness is anonymous. One named man said of me on Facebook last week:
“She should be banished from our lovely Stroud…years ago she’d have been shot on the spot for her arrogance and hypocrisy…yet people voted for the ass licking vile piece of slime.”
Lovely—and I could go on and on. I do not have enough time to properly address other reports of dangerous antisemitism, fake news, vaccine misinformation, deliberate reputation ruining and online fraud. That is on top of the daily legal but harmful harassing-type behaviour, plus posts that have the veneer of a justified challenge but are really just deliberately spiking pile-ons and hate.
Constituents I have spoken to are clear that the reporting does not work, the cost of legal remedies are out of the reach of normal people and the law needs updating. We need to make social media known more for the good in our society, rather than as a toxic, unsafe hellhole. The Government’s online harms work, though overdue, is to be commended as a huge step in the right direction. That legislation will require media platforms to take more effective actions against abuse, whether it is anonymous or not. Its aims of protecting children and empowering adults to stay safe online are noble, yet the White Paper barely addresses the issue of anonymity. There were no specific consultation questions about the issue. That should be rectified without delay.
As it stands, tech companies do not know who millions of their users are. No matter how good their intentions, the lack of basic information means that any attempt to police platforms and bring offenders to justice is a painful process, if it happens at all. Ofcom’s hands will be tied behind its back before it even starts.
I do not propose the banning of anonymous accounts. There are great benefits in anonymity that I know other Members will speak passionately about today. I would like to see tech companies move on this issue, as we should not always need the Government to intervene, although sadly it currently looks like they will have to.
Three simple steps would go a long way to prevent, deter and reduce online abuse. First, we should give social media users the option to verify their identity. Secondly, we should make it easy for everybody to see whether or not a user has chosen to verify their identity. Members of this House already use that function—my Twitter account has a prominent blue tick next to it, thereby providing confidence that the account is genuine and my details have been checked. Verification works: we should make it available to all. Finally, we should give users the option to block communication, comments and other interaction from unverified users as a category, if they wish.
Some people argue that such moves would undermine freedom of speech, but I disagree. No one would be prevented from using another name or being “Princess What’s-her-chops”, but it would make it harder for online abusers to hide in the shadows if they cause mayhem. Importantly, it would make abusers easier to catch and give social media users the power of choice. Some will be happy to interact with unverified users; others will not. But there must be a choice.
In any event, what greater impediment to freedom of speech is there than people worrying that what they say online will end up in a death threat or a rape threat? What personal freedoms have been lost through the damage done to mental health by online bullying? How many people have already looked at online abuse and hesitated before applying for public-facing jobs, or not applied at all? My proposals would protect freedom of expression and respect the choice of anonymity, but make it harder for abusers to hide in darkness and give individuals new powers to control how they interact with others. I urge everybody to look up the organisation Clean up the Internet, which was co-founded by one of my constituents, to see the proposals in more detail.
Mr Deputy Speaker, no one should face the abuse and horror that you will hear about today. For the victims of online harm, the abuse is not virtual. It does not stay in cyber-space. It impacts the real lives of real people in the real world. If we fail properly to investigate the impact and options surrounding anonymity, I fear we will render any forthcoming legislation and change—no matter how good it is—out of touch and out of date before the ink is dry. We have the expertise, support and drive to tackle online harms; let us be a beacon of light and illuminate the dark streets of social media. Let us really lead the world on tackling anonymous abuse.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It may be of use if I go through some of the timings for the rest of the debate and the afternoon. The wind-ups will start at 4.21, with six minutes for John Nicolson. We will then have Jo Stevens at 4.27 and the Minister, Matt Warman, at 4.35. At 4.43, Siobhan Baillie will have a couple of minutes to wind up the debate.
The time limit is three minutes and I must ask hon. Members to observe it very strictly, because otherwise colleagues will simply not be able to get into the debate. They will be doing colleagues a favour if they can even manage to deliver their speeches in less than three minutes.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing this debate.
Legislating on online harms gives us a vital opportunity to call a halt to the extremism, misinformation and avalanche of harmful abuse that has become commonplace on social media. Whether on big platforms such as Twitter or fringe platforms such as Telegram, harmful content is now all-pervasive. Recently, another tsunami of racist abuse was directed at the footballers Marcus Rashford, Lauren James and Anthony Martial. Sometimes, the perpetrators can be identified, but too often those responsible do not reveal who they are. In the past, we argued that online anonymity supported open democratic debate; I am now convinced that anonymity encourages online harm that is not just hateful in itself but is used to spread lies about individuals and aims to undermine their credibility and so shut down their voices. Far from nurturing democratic debate, anonymity undermines democracy.
My work challenging Jew-hate reached a climax last autumn, with the publication of the Equality and Human Rights Commission report into antisemitism in the Labour party. Community Security Trust found that my public comments at that time led to 90,000 mentions on social media. The vast majority were abusive, racist and misogynistic.
Let me share just a few; some are very offensive.
“I hope she dies soon. Dumb bitch”;
“nothing but a couple of shit-stirring…cum buckets, bought and paid for by Israel.”
I was told I was a “Mossad agent”, a “Zionist stooge”, a wrinkly “pedo-lover”. “Traitor.” “Snake.” “Rat.” “Shill.” “Nazi”. This abuse is aggressive, harmful, yet sometimes I have no idea who said it.
Ending anonymity for those who promulgate hate or harm is key to effectively combating it. We must compel social media companies to be able to identify all users. We know that is easily done. Take the online payment company PayPal. Everyone using PayPal must provide their identity when setting up an account. Users’ identity is not public, but it can be traced if required. If social media companies acted similarly, those who use online anonymity for good, such as whistleblowers, or victims of child abuse or domestic abuse, could continue to do so, but those who use anonymity to spread harmful content would be identifiable, and could be dealt with by the appropriate authorities. Knowing that would, at a stroke—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am sorry; we will have to leave it there. Time is up.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
How deeply upsetting for everybody to hear that very powerful speech by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). It is humbling to follow it. I congratulate her on what she said and the bravery she has shown. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing this debate and thank the Committee for granting it.
Of course plenty of people are anonymous without ever being abusive and, God knows, plenty of abuse comes from people who are perfectly open about who they are, but there is something of a media hierarchy in human nature. I think we all recognise that there are many people who would say things to someone on the phone that they would not say in person, who would put things in email that they would not say on the phone, would put things on Twitter that they would not write in an email, and yes, will post anonymously something they would never want to see their name written next to.
I do not want to ban anonymity, any more than my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud would. People have long sought its sense of freedom, its disinhibiting effect, its privacy and occasionally its hilarity and enjoyment, and there is nothing wrong with any of that. As long as there is no harm to anybody else, it is no business of the state. It is also important, of course, for activists in oppressive regimes, or for people seeking advice on sensitive issues, to discover a community out there, to know that they are not alone. But while in one context anonymity can give voice to the voiceless and empower the oppressed, in another it can coarsen public discourse and facilitate abuse. Surely it is possible for us to have the one without having to have the other. In this debate we will hear, indeed have already heard, about some really nasty abuses—in many cases, criminal abuses, where the issue with anonymity is really one about registration; it is about the impediments to enforcement action. Many of those cases will be about people in the public eye.
I am also concerned about lower-level effects—the impact on the general tone of public discourse, and the consequences for our social cohesion and mutual understanding. I am concerned not only, or even mainly, about public figures, but also about everybody else—about moderate, normal people of all views who fear to put their head above the parapet, and those deterred from entering public life in future for fear of what their children might see written about them on Twitter.
Free speech is at the heart of our traditions, but we have another long tradition that pamphlets declare who they are from—the imprint. Writers might write under pseudonyms, but someone—the publisher—is ultimately accountable. Social media platforms deny that responsibility, so anonymity could also make it easier for those foreign powers and others who want deliberately to confuse and divide us. It can be hard to know whether you are interacting with a person, a machine or something in between.
There are many possible permutations; there are also many pitfalls, and this warrants proper debate and deliberation. My proposal, like that of my hon. Friend, is a pretty mild one, and a safe one—that if you are on general-usage, mass-market social media using your real identity, you should have the right, if you choose, to hear only from other people using their real identity.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing today’s debate. There are two issues that I want to touch on briefly in relation to anonymity regarding online accounts.
The first issue is impersonation online, which I experienced in 2019 just prior to the general election as I gave up my Twitter MP handle. Within an hour, someone had stolen it and followed a number of my colleagues, and began to tweet out as though they were me with my Twitter name DrLisaCameronMP. It was not a parody account, which we can all relate to, but one which I believe to have been made in malice to impersonate an MP. We all know how many constituents contact us initially through social media with crucial private issues who would have been affected by this individual acting with impunity.
When we reported it, we were originally told that there was nothing that breached standards. However, this is a serious matter not just for public figures but for those who come in confidence to seek our help. My situation could not be rectified until I contacted the CEO of Twitter. Following the election, I even had difficulty getting my own handle back, as I was initially advised that it belonged to someone else. No one was held responsible and it would have taken a police investigation to find out. It should simply never be allowed to happen. Where it does, there should be some means of recourse due to the adverse impact on our most vulnerable constituents.
The second issue relates to my role as vice-chair of the all-party group against antisemitism. Sadly, and as we might expect, antisemitism and extremism are a key concern in relation to online anonymity. Disguising one’s identity is not new for extremists, as the Antisemitism Policy Trust pointed out in its briefing on online anonymity. The Ku Klux Klan and others have long sought to cover their faces in order to carry out extreme acts. The internet now offers anonymous abusers and spreaders of radical and violent ideologies a degree of protection by allowing them to hide their identities. Looking at the Community Security Trust’s incident statistics for October 2020, nearly 40% of reported antisemitic abuse online during that month came from fully anonymous and partially anonymous users. That is an extremely worrying trend.
Placing sensible checks on anonymity and incentivising against harm from anonymous accounts can help victims regain a sense of control and confidence, and would surely disrupt what are presently significant levels of abuse. I urge that restrictions be applied to online abusive actions, much more so than they currently are. Existing legislation urgently needs to be updated through the proposed online safety Bill.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) [V]
We should not have to tolerate online abuse targeting individuals with dehumanising language and threats of injury. Anonymity on social media has provided some people with a platform to abuse others in this way. There are clearly two parties at fault: the person who creates the hateful content, and the platform that both lets them do it and allows what they have posted to remain visible. Making people reveal their true identity to a tech company when creating a social media account would, I believe, make it more likely that they will treat other users with respect. These tech platforms also need to co-operate more effectively and transparently with investigations into the behaviour of their users.
Social media companies too often mistake harmful hate speech for legitimate freedom of expression. A recent report by The Guardian revealed internal moderator guidelines at Facebook, reportedly leaked to the newspaper, that say that public figures are considered to be permissible targets for certain types of abuse, including calls for their death. More needs to be done not just to take down harmful content, but to ensure that social media companies do not amplify it in their systems. No one has a freedom of expression right to be promoted on TikTok’s “For You” page or the Facebook news feed. An internal company report in 2016 told Facebook that 64% of people who joined groups sharing extremist content did so at the prompting of Facebook’s recommendation tools. Another report from August last year noted that 70% of the top 100 most active civic groups in the USA are considered non-recommendable for issues such as hate, misinformation, bullying and harassment.
The business model of social media companies is based around engagement, meaning that people who engage in and with abusive behaviour will see more of it, because that is what the platform thinks they are interested in. When we talk about regulating harmful content online, we are mainly talking about that model and the money these companies make from all user-generated content as long as it keeps people on their site. Content that uses dehumanising language to attack others is not only hurtful to the victim but more likely to encourage others to do the same.
When Parliament debates the online harms Bill later this year, we will have to remind ourselves what the real-world consequences are of abuse on social media. In Washington DC on 6 January, we saw an attempted insurrection in the US Capitol, fuelled by postings on Facebook, that caused the deaths of five people. In the UK, we have seen significant increases in recorded hate crimes over the past 10 years, suicide rates are at a 20-year high, and over the past six years the number of hospital admissions because of self-injury in pre-teens has doubled. Arrests for racist and indecent chanting at football grounds more than doubled between 2019 and 2020, even though hundreds of matches were cancelled or played behind closed doors. These issues are too serious to be left to the chief execs of the big tech companies alone. Those people need to recognise the harm that their systems can create in the hands of people and organisations intent on spreading hate and abuse. We need to establish the standards that we expect them to meet, and empower the regulatory institutions we will need to ensure that they are doing so.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing this important debate. Like the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), I had one of those difficult conversations this week, which I am sure many Members across the House have had, when I saw reports that the Facebook moderators had said that death threats towards members of the public who are in the public realm were acceptable. It is never easy, getting a death threat or a rape threat. I first started getting them in 2013, when I helped the campaigner, Caroline Criado Perez, to campaign to put Jane Austen on banknotes, and in the past eight years the situation has gone from bad to worse. Back then, it felt shocking. It was unusual. It was definitely a matter for the police. Now it is all too commonplace.
One of the things we have to recognise is that this it is not an equal experience. Women, particularly women of colour, and people from non-binary backgrounds are especially at risk of being abused online. Some 82% of women politicians from around the world report experiencing psychological violence, and half of them have had rape or death threats. In the 2017 election, MPs who were women of colour were particularly targeted, receiving 35% more abuse than their white colleagues, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) receiving half of all the abuse online during that election. It is little wonder that by 2019, many colleagues from across the House cited the abuse that they had faced as the reason they were standing down.
This is not just about people in the public domain. It is also about the experience of women and people of colour across our country, and we know that that has got worse during the pandemic, with a 50% increase in the abuse, according to Glitch!, which has been monitoring this. It is not just the words; it is the sheer volume of abuse we get. And it is not just online any more; it is leaching into our offline world, and it is increasingly not anonymous, with people feeling emboldened to use abuse as it becomes commonplace. Every year that we delay enacting this legislation is another year when we see voices being removed from our public domain, so let us kill the idea that this is about free speech. It is not free speech when 50% of the conversation is living in fear of what someone might do, or of being found or being terrorised, and it is not free speech when we are not hearing those voices—that diversity of voices that improves our debates and discussions.
I started off using kittens to try to take the heat out of conversations; now I have moved on to capybaras, but the problem in the last eight years has got worse. It has been state-sponsored, it is organised and it requires us to come together and hold the media companies accountable, just as we would hold a pub landlord accountable if we were being abused in a pub while just going about our business. The online harms Bill must recognise the intersectional nature of the issues we face. It must listen to organisations such as Glitch!, Hope not Hate and the Jo Cox Foundation—for goodness’ sake, it must listen to that—when they argue that we must recognise who is being targeted. In a free and fair democracy, we must fight to reclaim not just our streets but our social media too.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) [V]
I want to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), not just on securing this debate but on what she said. In this debate there is one central question, which is how we are to keep online anonymity available for those who need and deserve it and yet ensure that it cannot be used as a shield by those who do not. Of course, some will argue that anonymity online is part of freedom of speech, and that the freedom to hold opinions without interference, which is included in article 19 of the universal declaration on human rights, implies a right to anonymity, but I do not think it is that simple.
Human rights are often about a balance of rights. The right to anonymity in what someone says has to be balanced against the right of the people they abuse to speak freely themselves and the need to hold them to account for making their speech less free. These are of course difficult balances to strike, but if we care about everyone’s freedom of speech, we cannot avoid them.
Freedom of speech is not unrestricted in other arenas, and it should not be unrestricted on social media either. That restriction often comes via the criminal law, including online, but there is much we should not tolerate that falls short of criminal behaviour, damaging individuals and damaging us all. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) that in addressing anonymous abuse of an individual, we perhaps should start, counter-intuitively, by looking not at the merits of anonymity, but at the merits of verifiable identity. Whether it is in online banking, shopping or combating deep fakes, it will increasingly help to be able to demonstrate who we are, and if we can establish reliable ways of proving identity, we should be able to choose to interact online only with others whose identity can be verified or who are willing to reveal it. However, anonymous content that damages us all, from disinformation to extremism, is a different problem. Here I think we should consider the disclosure of identity only with judicial sanction, in the same way as other intrusions into privacy such as search warrants or phone tapping, which require the authority of a judge.
Of course, all of this needs much more thought and debate, and the forthcoming online safety Bill should be an opportunity for both. Determining what the duty of care at the heart of the Bill requires online platforms to do, both for those who need the protection of anonymity and for those who need protection from anonymity, is a real challenge, but I think it is now one that we must grasp and do so in the course of this Bill, not put off again.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) for securing this debate. The word “pandemic” is now very much part of our lexicon, and forever will be because of covid-19, yet there is another pandemic infecting this world and that is online abuse.
Since I entered politics, I myself have been the victim of a consistent and vicious campaign of abuse. It is largely based on my appearance. When I post the video of this speech online, invariably someone will post a gif or a comment designed to hurt me. Sometimes this is done through anonymous accounts and sometimes through real profiles. We live in a world where online platforms embolden people to be nasty, vindictive, spiteful and cruel, and very few public figures escape it.
Only last week, following a match with Slavia Prague, the Glasgow Rangers footballers, Glen Kamara and Kemar Roofe, were subjected to a torrent of some of the vilest racist abuse I have ever witnessed on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. While this was on an unprecedented scale, the club tells me that every single black player at Rangers football club has been racially abused online at some point this season, yet when confronted, the social media companies wash their hands of responsibility and continue to facilitate this hate on their platforms. Rather than joining the rest of society in tackling racial inequality and prejudice, they are actually enabling it. It is time they were called out and held accountable.
I also want to raise a very sinister and very concerning trend seen in Northern Ireland. It involves threats of social media campaigns being waged against politicians and against journalists in a bid to destroy them personally and silence them publicly. What is most concerning is that the links to a political party that enjoys significant electoral support being behind this campaign of intimidation are strong. We need the social media companies to recognise this bot intimidation, and we need the police to be empowered to stop it.
In conclusion, we can continue to talk about these issues, but what we want to see is a legislative basis for enforcing measures for social media firms to require ID to verify accounts and for a swifter response and better co-operation with the police in tackling this online pandemic of hate. If that does not happen, we will have failed every victim, whether a teenager, TV presenter or international footballer, and allowed the continuation of hurt and harm against them. It is time for this Government to act.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) for securing this important debate. Over the past year, we have all spent more time online, for good and for ill. The pressure of the pandemic has shown us some of the very best parts of our society and some of the very worst. Online abuse, made much easier through anonymity, has consistently been one of the very worst elements. Let me be clear: I am not attacking anonymity online itself. It is not always harmful; in fact, it can often be a force for good. However, it is currently being abused by trolls and bullies and used to spread misinformation. That harms other users and undermines democratic debate. From the stories we have heard today to the ones I hear in the Tea Room on a daily basis and tragic cases such as that of Caroline Flack, this abuse is real. It has a real impact and lasting, sometimes lethal, consequences.
When social media users are anonymous, they feel much more able to behave poorly and bully and abuse other users. It is not just me saying that; repeated studies show that anonymity makes user behaviour increasingly aggressive and violent. Anonymity also makes it much harder to enforce rules against such behaviour. If a troll is eventually banned, they simply create a new anonymous account under a new name and their behaviour continues unabated. Online anonymity is a key factor in the spread of disinformation, conspiracy theories and extremism. Organised disinformation networks exploit the ability to create fake accounts and false identities at scale, using these networks to create false and misleading content and to spread and amplify it.
Tackling this effectively will take a really fine balance. I have absolutely no appetite to see free speech curtailed, but if we hope to challenge disinformation and extreme content, we need to address this issue head-on. If we look at platforms such as BitChute and some of the people who use them, they have weaponised free speech and are acting as if there are no boundaries at all. People use these platforms to propagate images and text that directly undermine the rights of other people and minority communities with hateful content. We need to have a proper discussion and understanding of this. Anonymity wrapped in the flag of free speech is being used right now to justify the sharing of extremely hateful content and to directly assault our democratic values.
How do we tackle this? I do not believe that we should just ban anonymity, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud makes exactly the right points on this issue. We should mandate that social media platforms give people the option to verify their identity. Users should have the option to block interaction with others who choose not to verify themselves, and it should be clear to everyone who is verified. Doing that would put the power back into the hands of users who want to enjoy the amazing benefits of social media but not see hate speech or fake news. Frankly, if someone is not prepared to stand up and put their name to their words, why should anyone listen to them?
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) not only on securing the debate but on the dignity and determination she has brought to this issue. I am speaking primarily in my capacity as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for compassionate politics.
The last year has shown the capacity of social media and digital platforms to benefit society. We have all seen how they can be misused. Online abuse and even online hate, including racism, antisemitism and misogyny, is prolific, with horrific impacts on individuals’ mental health. We have even seen cases that have been associated with suicide. In addition to harming individuals, propaganda, misinformation and fake news are threatening the health of populations and the security of democracies across the world.
Anonymous social media accounts are used by many abusers to hide and get away with their abuse. Research by Clean up the Internet has shown that the majority of abuse and misinformation spread online comes from these anonymous accounts. We should be in no doubt: anonymous accounts embolden bullies and facilitate abusers. This is ruining lives.
It is not only the personal damage caused by anonymous accounts: they are polluting public space, entrenching divisions and trashing our democracy. Research by the thinktank Compassion in Politics found that nearly one in three people are put off posting on social media sites for fear of abuse. Voices are being shut out from online debates because, for many, the space in which those debates are taking place is becoming increasingly toxic. Damaging lies are spun without any recourse.
The Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats has concluded that the use of fake social media accounts to influence the outcome of UK elections is “systemic” and that the level of influence of those accounts is “considerably more extensive” than is widely understood. Of course, this follows on from the work by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the US Senate committees.
We have arrived at this critical juncture largely because of the legal framework in which social media companies have been allowed to grow and prosper. A hands-off approach gave fledgling social media companies the room they needed to experiment with algorithms, turn profits from advertising revenue, and engage a larger user base with little social responsibility. The experience over the last decade or so shows that things cannot continue as they are. We need a new legal framework. I hope the online safety Bill will take the bold step of making sure that anonymity is sorted.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Imagine that we lived in a society where people walked around wearing a face mask to hide their identity with the sole intention of bullying people and causing upset without any consequences. That would be unacceptable—in fact, nearly impossible, as the police could be called and the culprits dealt with. Yet we have an online society that allows that to happen.
I only ever use Facebook, which is a great way to communicate with people, and most people on there use it sensibly and safely, but we all know that hiding behind a keyboard can bring out the worst in people. Lots of us have been guilty of reacting too quickly to a comment, saying the wrong thing or reading it in the wrong way, but that happens in real life anyway. Maybe some of us should actually be breathalysed before logging on to Facebook, as I am sure alcohol can sometimes play a part. Hiding behind a screen sometimes means that people act differently from the way they act in person. It can bring out a nasty side. If people want to be nasty, it is their right to be nasty, but they should stand up and be counted and identified in doing so.
As MPs we get our fair share of abuse online. The sad thing is that I have sort of accepted that, as I am an MP, it is an occupational hazard. When I say abuse, I mean personal threats—threatening messages about me, my wife, my family, my children and my friends. Sadly, it is even worse for female MPs and MPs of colour. It is unacceptable. I know that MPs are not the nation’s favourite people, but does that justify the level of abuse that they get? I do not think it does.
Some people wish to remain anonymous when reaching out for support or whistleblowing, and that is acceptable. This could be a person wishing to reach out to warn somebody about a new partner in their life who has been abusive or a criminal in the past. We need to find a place online for these people to go to make sure that they are listened to without being ridiculed or laughed at, and feel safe. Maybe we could look at creating an online safe place.
Lockdown has meant that many of us have spent more and more time online, and sadly, for many of us, that has meant more abuse, more threats and the like. In my constituency, I have a little girl called Jossie who has Down’s syndrome. Jossie is a beautiful, bright and loving little five-year-old girl. Her mother campaigns online to raise awareness of Down’s syndrome, and proudly displays Jossie’s pictures online. Trolls in my area thought it was a good idea to lift Jossie’s picture off the internet and put a noose over her head, and make fun about it to Jossie’s sister. This would not happen in the outside world without immediate, swift consequences, and the online world should be no different. I stand with Jossie.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing this debate and on all the work that she is doing to raise this issue. Yet again, it is a pleasure to take part in a debate where Members across the House are working together to find solutions.
There may be genuine and valid reasons why some people need to protect their identity online—those at risk of being traced by former partners in an abusive situation, professionals such as teachers, or those whose views may put them in serious danger of harm or torture from their own Government regime. Those who do not need protection, however, are the individuals who choose to use online platforms to bully, intimidate, troll and abuse others. Of course, many people online behave like that without feeling the need to hide behind fake profiles.
Social media gives a great platform to public figures such as MPs, but the downside to having a blue tick on Twitter, especially for women, is that we experience a disproportionate amount of online abuse almost daily. My right hon. Friends the Members for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) spring to mind when I think of online abuse—and indeed, as the hon. Member for Stroud mentioned, she herself was trolled for daring to be pregnant.
I cannot speak in a debate such as this without raising the huge problem of racism on online platforms. We have all seen it in all its disgusting forms all over social media, from trolling, vile language to the use of insulting stereotypes and images. Sadly, though, some forms of racism have been overlooked and even deemed acceptable by many. Racism is not only about the colour of our skin; Islamophobia and antisemitism have shamed political parties in recent years, and the Labour party has been in the spotlight over the recent findings of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. That is, of course, deeply shameful, as is the treatment of the former MPs who felt that they had no choice but to leave this party.
While I welcome the measures put in place by the leader of my party and the general secretary and his team, many of us have been reporting online abuse by members of our party for several years—personal abuse, sometimes by those with blue ticks themselves, and abuse by party members using anonymous, fake accounts. I know who they are, and it takes only a few seconds to find the posts that they write and share which blatantly clash with the values of this political party.
One of the worst examples for me was the member who mocked up photos and memes of me dressed in the striped clothes worn by Jews in concentration camps. Other members reported his behaviour, yet nothing at all was done until he posted support for a different political party, when he was swiftly expelled. I look forward to the changes that my party and social media platforms will bring in on online abuse, and to the end of these anonymous accounts that are not verified.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing this debate. It is always a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield).
My constituent Frankie was subject to online stalking, which started on social media but escalated to severe harassment in the workplace, including incredibly offensive emails sent to both her and her colleagues. That caused serious distress for Frankie. While the police were able to track down her online stalker, because the stalker was based in a different jurisdiction—they were based in Scotland, a very long way from East Surrey, and had happened upon her almost by accident—nothing could be done, leaving that person free to go on and abuse again.
Although I welcome the online harms work that we are doing and the work of the Law Commission to improve the duty of care and to look at how we can boost our offences regime for online communications, I refer Members to the Law Commission’s language about the practical barriers to enforcement. It talks about the sheer scale of abusive and offensive online communications. That means that we must seek to prevent some of these communications; we cannot just use an offence regime to police them.
I want to touch briefly on free speech. We know that women are more abused online, we know that that inhibits them from expressing their views, and we know that that puts them off standing for office. I just wonder whether we are ensuring that we look at whose free speech we are protecting.
We also know that online anonymity can be very beneficial to people, whether they are whistleblowers, domestic abuse victims or people who just enjoy the uninhibited conversations that they can find online, but we know that, as more and more people go online, we will have more and more of these cross-jurisdiction problems. From 2 billion in 2015, we expect 7 billion people to be online in 2030. We cannot just act unilaterally on this issue; we need to look at what we can do to work with our partners across the world, because more and more of these trolls may not be based in the UK.
From stalking to harassment, grooming, scamming, extremism, fake news and political interference, we know that the anonymity of online interaction is doing harm, and there is therefore much merit in the proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. We should be considering those and all other policies that we can to try to inhibit some of the anonymous abuse that we have seen.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Well done the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) for securing this debate. I stand here today as a Liberal and I am a great supporter of free speech, but I have no difficulty in drawing a line between free speech and online abuse. I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for lightening up this rather dark debate with his joke about breathalysing people before they go on Facebook, but what we have heard from all around the Chamber is a horrific litany of disgusting abuse online.
Online abuses have a real-world impact. We cannot just take refuge in dualism. We cannot say that the online world is different from the real world, because it is not. As we know, we have seen the final, awful result of some of this, which is that young people and other people have taken their own lives.
On anonymity, the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) and the hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) made the very sensible point that, of course, anonymity has its place in all this. It can provide much needed support for whistleblowers, for minorities finding a safe online space for self-expression, and for victims of physical abuse connecting with a support network. The conversation about anonymity is difficult and we may have to make trade-offs in what the Bill contains. We may not like some of the trade-offs, but at the end of the day, it would be much more worrying if the online safety Bill did not get to the heart of the issue. I sincerely hope that it will.
Let us face it: we already take a variable approach. If somebody wants to buy alcohol—booze—they have to prove that they are of a certain age; they have to prove who they are. If someone wants to get a certain job, take out some sort of loan and or make a financial transaction, they have to prove who they are, so there is a precedent for such proof. Lastly, we have the technical know-how to tackle this issue. It is out there and we can use it.
I want to make it very clear to the Government that it will not be easy but we have to get the identification issue sorted out. It would be a hugely valuable achievement to pull this one off, because I never again want to hear the sort of stuff that I have been hearing in this debate, such as how the hon. Member for Stroud and many others have had this dreadful stuff flung at them. It is just the lowest of the low.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) [V]
I, alongside everyone else, want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing such an important debate. I start with the basic principle that what is illegal offline must be illegal online. If a person shouts and threatens to murder someone in the street, if they threaten to rape them, if they are racist, if they stalk someone: these are crimes and people must be held accountable for them. However, by enabling anonymity online, we are allowing people to get away. We are encouraging lawlessness and that must be stopped.
We have heard many reasons today why anonymity is important, such as if someone is a whistleblower, if they are a victim of sexual assault or if they are simply writing a blog about something that is not their day job. These are all reasons why anonymity is important, but a person must waive that right when they commit a crime. At the moment, it is far too difficult for the police to find out who the perpetrators are. It can take up to a year in some cases, even in very serious cases, to track down the authors of these offending tweets and so on. That is what we have to change.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) was absolutely right when he said that we need to see more action from social media companies, but we also need to clear up the law, so that it is simple and easy for the police to track down perpetrators. Tackling anonymity is important, because it not just shields criminals, but encourages lawlessness. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) talked earlier about the Law Commission’s finding that anonymity facilitates and encourages abusive behaviours. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud was absolutely right when she said that it is just a hop, skip and a jump between people behaving badly online and that translating into violence on the street.
We have spoken a lot this week, and in preceding weeks, about how we absolutely need to tackle violence against women. When we see data from Amnesty International on the number of women affected, it does even more to build the case that we need to tackle anonymity. We need to make sure people are held accountable for what they do online, and we need to make sure that the absolutely shocking stories we have heard today cannot be repeated. The Government are doing a lot in the online harms Bill, and this would be a worthy addition.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
I thank all Members on both sides of the House who are working together to address this issue.
As many people live increasingly online, never more so than during the past year, it is time to get serious about making the online world safer and protecting pluralism, democracy and the mental health of the many people who engage online. As I suspect most Members will know, particularly female Members, online abuse from anonymous accounts has sadly become part of daily life for most roles in public life. Social media is a vital tool for engagement, to listen as well as to broadcast, so it is a problem when people have to wade through pointless abuse, perhaps gendered, sectarian or racist, particularly from accounts that appear to have been set up for precisely that reason.
Although there are tools to report and block accounts, it usually has to be done by the victim of abuse, after the abuse has been experienced and the damage done. This has a cumulative effect, and it is easy to see how it is being harnessed politically in something of a war of attrition against opposing political voices. This is a new manifestation of a phenomenon familiar in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, of low-level, persistent abuse and intimidation that is designed to wear down an opponent to the extent that they decide that expressing a particular viewpoint just is not worth the hassle.
Misinformation is an additional and pressing concern with far-reaching consequences, whether through sowing distrust and hate or more literal and immediate impacts, as with systematic misinformation about the covid-19 pandemic. Most concerning of all is the harmful impact that anonymous abuse can have on young or vulnerable people. Research shows that bullying and receiving content they wish they had not seen is widespread among young people, and it is mainly sent by people who are not prepared to attach their own name. We have heard tragic stories of online bullying of adults and young people—bullying that may continue 24 hours a day, following people into their homes and bedrooms, in a way that is impossible to escape.
I welcome the moves in the online harms Bill towards greater regulation and against anonymity where it is used for harmful purposes. Many Members have outlined some of the reasons why people may choose and need to act anonymously, but the internet is essentially a large public space with an antisocial behaviour problem. We design and shape our physical environment to promote safety. If the companies have failed to do that, the Government should step in. Slightly tangentially, Australia’s regulation of news content shows that, although it is an international problem, national Governments can tackle it.
The online world is a great place to engage, communicate and connect, but we need action now to harness it for good and to protect vulnerable people and pluralism.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing this debate. It is evident, from what everyone has said, that this is a clear and present issue that needs action. I am therefore grateful to the Government for consulting on this and for promising to introduce the online safety Bill, hopefully as soon as this year.
The White Paper sets out a sensible approach to what will be quite a dramatic overhaul of how our online world is regulated. It is right to take this action, and the severity of the issue justifies the impact of the proposed regulation on the platforms that facilitate online communications, recalling that fines of up to £18 million or 10% of annual turnover for noncompliance are being proposed.
This debate is well timed, as hon. Members will have seen a lot of misinformation, most of which originates online, regarding the efficacy and safety of covid-19 vaccines. This is a dangerous situation, and I am concerned. The actions and comments of some in the EU that have fuelled these malicious claims are, frankly, immoral, endangering not just their neighbour but their own citizens, too. Fortunately, 94% of the UK have had or are willing to have their dose, so the Government have obviously won this battle and have been more successful than many others in doing so.
It is not just misinformation. From racist or homophobic abuse to content designed to attack the self-esteem of vulnerable people, we have seen time and again that a dangerous minority of anonymous web users can do some truly horrid things from behind the safety of their screens. I welcome the Government’s proposals, and believe that the approach of regulating and placing some of the responsibility on the firms and platforms facilitating such communications is the correct one.
I will use the short time that I have left to make some observations about the proposals on verified ID. If they are optional, I am concerned about cross-platform penetration—for example, Google search reporting on the results of tweets and Facebook posts. There will be some technical difficulties in how we make cross-platform presentations apply.
Secondly, we all know the power of some of the big tech firms such as Facebook, Google and Apple. I believe that they currently have what is necessary to identify a lot of these online trolls, and that the Government forcing a duty of care on them is the biggest and most important step that we will take—bringing them to the table, making them responsible, and calling them out when they do not co-operate with law enforcement.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
I join colleagues in congratulating the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing the debate and opening it so effectively. As the debate has illustrated, online and anonymous abuse takes many forms, and it is constantly evolving.
One form that was new to me last year was when my constituent, Helen Mort, told me of the harrowing time that she had faced because of the actions of someone online who is still unknown despite their cruel behaviour. She told me of her shock and fear when she learned that non-sexual images of her had been uploaded to a porn website, the users of which were then invited to edit the photos, merging Helen’s face with explicit and violent sexual images.
Deepfakes were made by unknown people from original, non-intimate images taken from Helen’s social media without her consent and superimposed on sexual content. When she spoke to the police about the images, she was told that they could not act because there was no crime. In England and Wales, under section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 it is an offence to non-consensually distribute a private sexual photograph or film with the intent to cause distress to the person depicted. There is no offence if the original image is not private or sexual.
Clearly, that leaves people vulnerable to online abuse, suffering humiliation and distress, while the perpetrators of such acts can rest easy, knowing that there is no criminal offence for which they can be charged. The call for evidence in the Government’s recently reopened consultation on violence against women and girls is comprehensive in covering many types of online and image-based abuse, but it omits the creation of deepfakes. I hope that the Minister will agree with and pass on my concerns about that omission, and ask that it is included in the Government’s consideration of the issues.
I have discussed the matter with the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who I understand cannot be present because she is chairing another debate. She has done important work on this issue, and I know that she shares my concerns. When the online harms Bill eventually arrives, we must look to it to outlaw the making, taking and sharing of intimate images without consent.
Although the delay to the Bill has been frustrating, it will enable us to take account of the Law Commission’s current review on this area, which is due to be published later this year. I hope that the Minister, when winding up, will agree that when the Bill comes forward it must be used as a vehicle for implementing improvements to the law to protect people in a position like Helen’s.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie). I am the Petitions Committee Chair, and we have received numerous petitions on tackling online abuse, with petitioners identifying anonymity as a key contributing factor to the abuse of vulnerable people online. Last April, reality star Bobby Norris started a petition entitled, “Hold online trolls accountable for their online abuse via their IP address”, which quickly passed the 100,000 signature threshold to be considered for debate. Bobby suggested that people’s IP addresses should be used to ensure that people engaging in online abuse cannot simply open new accounts if they are blocked, but can have their social media accounts permanently deactivated.
Similarly, a petition to make verified identity a requirement for opening a social media account was created on 5 March by Katie Price, who is campaigning on the abuse faced by her son Harvey, and it already has nearly 170,000 signatures. In an evidence session last year, Katie told the Committee,
“if you go and get a mortgage, a car on HP, bank credit or whatever anyone wants, they want to know your name and address. They do credit checks…It is simple. Why can’t they do it on social media, so that if someone is being abusive then you have their address and you can find them?”
All this points to a growing public concern that anonymity allows people to get away with—and worse, encourages—horrendous abuse of a kind that would simply not be tolerated offline. Petitioners know that whatever measures we take will never be enough to stop the most determined trolls, but it is the same principle we implicitly understand when we lock our doors or install an alarm system: no home security measures will stop determined burglars, but they deter most would-be criminals.
I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, and we have seen that anonymity also has an impact on online hate speech. In October 2020, nearly 40% of reported antisemitic abuse online during that month came from fully anonymous or partially anonymous users. It is a worrying trend, and the Antisemitism Policy Trust has written a really important briefing on this issue, which I encourage the Minister to read. Several studies have shown that anonymity can make user behaviour more aggressive by creating environments less constrained by social norms. The Law Commission’s investigation found that
“anonymity online often facilitates and encourages abusive behaviours. Combined with an online disinhibition effect, abusive behaviours, such as pile-on harassment, are much easier to engage in on a practical level.”
We have tiptoed around this issue of online harms for far too long. The Government must now set out a clear plan to address online abuse and hate speech, and give people back control of their online lives.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) for having secured this debate, and being a voice for those who have no voice. Anonymous online abuse is dreadful to experience. I do not suppose there is one among us here today who has not experienced it in one form or the other. It is not, of course, the preserve of politicians, the high profile or celebrities: it creeps into every crack in society, as keyboard warriors hide behind unidentifiable usernames. However, as Members of Parliament, we represent every constituent who is on the receiving end, and it is therefore incumbent upon us to take action on their behalf.
If I am honest, online abuse was not something that I experienced personally before becoming a politician, but in the past 16 months, I have felt the full force of it. Friends and colleagues tell me that it has become more commonplace over the past year, as people have been locked behind closed doors, struggling through the confusing ups and downs we have all experienced since covid hit; it seems to have become more acceptable to take it out on others online. On online platforms and public fora, egged on by an often equally anonymous audience, some people say things they would never normally dream of saying publicly, purely because their username gives them a level of anonymity. For those on the receiving end—even those who have strong, resilient support networks to protect them—the effect can be devastating, leading to mental and physical health crisis and even suicide.
Abuse like this is cowardly. These people have no respect for differences or democracy. They do not represent the vast majority of the population, yet despite the fact that we all recognise how abhorrent it is, it still goes on. Before things go too far; before more people suffer; before we hand a life of unhindered online bullying to our children, we need to take action. The online harms Bill will help to tackle anonymous abuse by putting a duty of care on companies towards their users, overseen by an independent regulator. There will be clear safety standards, mandatory reporting requirements and strong enforcement powers to deal with non-compliance. It will remove the excuse that is sometimes rolled out that this is freedom of speech, or that such behaviour cannot be tackled when an account is anonymous.
We need to be absolutely clear: abuse is not the same as freedom of speech and being anonymous does not give anyone the right to abuse anyone else.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing this debate and taking the unusual step of seemingly unifying the entire House on this issue.
Throughout the pandemic, we have seen how social media can be a force for good. It has kept families and friends connected. It has allowed our children to continue their education from home. It has helped many elderly people living on their own to tackle feelings of loneliness and isolation. But these days, social media is often used for the wrong reasons: as a platform for abuse, trolling and bullying, often by anonymous users who hide behind a screen to bombard people with vile and sometimes threatening words.
The abuse has affected every type of user, including parents, celebrities and, indeed, Members of this House. Although I have experienced hateful bullying and online interactions since I was elected, I know that it is absolutely nothing in comparison to some of the atrocious abuse experienced by other Members, from the newest to some of the longest serving. Sadly, for many female Members, this abuse often goes further and results in harassment and threats. I give huge credit to my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) and for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), and all others in the House who, despite constant abuse from faceless trolls and bullies, have continued to work tirelessly for the good of their constituents and communities. For their resilience alone, they are a credit to this House.
Of course, this is not a partisan issue. The shocking abuse that is received by the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has been well documented for its appalling and abhorrent nature. Not only does such abuse hurt the individual; it damages our political discourse and our ability to debate. It ultimately damages our democracy, as it acts as a deterrent to people becoming engaged in politics at all.
Abusive behaviour on social media is indiscriminate and impacts many of our nation’s celebrities, sports stars and public figures, particularly if they are female or part of the BAME or LGBT communities. In the sporting world, sadly not a week goes by without a new instance of a black footballer being racially abused. Even our nation’s heroes are not immune, with trolling even aimed at the late Captain Sir Tom Moore and his family—a man who served this country, raised tens of millions for the NHS and lifted the spirits of a nation. Despite all his efforts, he and his family were still subjected to online abuse.
I have to ask, when is enough? Where do we draw the line? How many more individuals—whether close friends or public figures—do we have to lose before we start to address this horrific online abuse and hate? I think we all agree that the answer is now, and it is long overdue. Sadly, I say all this secure in the knowledge that the tweets will have already started, attacking me for having the audacity to stand up and say, “Enough.” Enough.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) [V]
With the advent of the online world, our experiences have changed and our networks have transformed. Although we have revolutionised our lives by connecting with people across the globe in ways that were unknown before, we have also sadly neglected the dangers and challenges that come with this online revolution. Let us be real. We all know how hurtful abuse can be, and yet for years we have allowed bucketsful of online abuse to go on by.
The online space has allowed some individuals to mask their characters and express hate in ways that would be utterly unacceptable in the real world. I know at first hand the level of abuse, hate and online threats that I have faced over the years, and it is happening online today. I know at first hand how a single tweet—which was up for less than eight minutes—can be misrepresented and exaggerated to wrongfully define an individual and cause an avalanche of hate and abuse. Due to that one single tweet, an individual was sent to prison for threats that he made to my life and Leave.EU was sued for misrepresenting me.
But what will happen to the hundreds of anonymous accounts whose Islamophobic, racist, misogynistic and hate-filled threats are left unchallenged on social media—the tweets of me wearing a hijab, falsely labelling me as an Islamist paedophile admirer, those describing me as a cancer that will lead to my destruction, and the hundreds of others that are still online today? In the real world we have hate crime laws and defamation laws, but for the anonymous trolls the online space has become a free-for-all.
This debate is not just about my experiences, or those of fellow parliamentarians, of the online abuse that we face daily; it is also about the experiences of ordinary people whose stories we never hear. We have the privilege of sharing our experiences in places such as Parliament, yet we still face this abuse, which is without any consequences. What hope do my constituents have?
The online harms Bill is meant to be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to legislate for the online world, so that we can protect freedom of expression without allowing hate, misinformation, and bullying to go unchecked. However, the Government have failed to deliver such legislation, and have watered down the contents of the Bill, leaving it with little effect. The very prejudices that we have fought to tackle over years have resurfaced online. It is almost as if the racism that was once expressed on the street has just moved anonymously online.
Parliament’s primary role might not be to change the moral conscience of those in society, but it is definitely to legislate against harm, and to protect all citizens of this country. I will end with this quote from the great Dr Martin Luther King which, sadly, I believe is still relevant today:
“Morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless.”
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) for securing this important debate. For me, online abuse increased when I became the Member of Parliament for Hyndburn, and it has included death threats, threats against my friends, my family, and a constant barrage of abuse. I cannot pretend that those words have not sometimes affected me and given me sleepless nights, worrying about my wellbeing and that of my loved ones. I have often defended the right to debate, whether in person or online, and I stand by that. However, it is unacceptable for a person to receive online abuse for their opinions, appearance, gender, or any other reason. Internet companies need to hold online trolls to account for their words and the damage those words cause. It is cowardly to hide behind a screen and the anonymity that social media profiles create.
I am fortunate that I have good people around me, both inside and outside this House, who I can turn to when I received such abuse. However, there are people across this country who have no one to turn to, and nobody to remind them of their good qualities. As we all know, online abuse can cause irreparable emotional and psychological damage for victims. It is not a surprise that as online abuse has increased, mental health issues have increased among young people. This is a growing pandemic, and I am pleased that the online safety Bill will begin to address those painful issues by holding internet companies to account.
My constituents have regularly shown their support for greater accountability from social media platforms and online abusers, I have been blown away on numerous occasions by the online support I received when I have shared my experiences. Those outpourings of love and support are testament to the fact that social media can be a safe and positive place for everyone.
In their manifesto, the Government made a commitment to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online. That commitment shows their intent to bring about positive change, and I applaud Ministers for condemning such online abuse. I welcome the review of law enforcement powers to tackle illegal anonymous abuse online, and I look forward to the Law Commission’s recommendations for reform in that area. I hope that Ministers will seriously consider, where appropriate, whether to bring those recommendations into law as part of the online safety Bill. We must all join together to say, “Enough is enough”, and we need to take action on this now.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I am the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, and on behalf of the NUJ, I wish to refer to the particular vulnerability of journalists, and the unprecedented virulence and level of the abuse, threats and harassment that takes place online. Even after the experience of a tsunami of abuse in recent years, the violent, threatening nature of abuse can still shock and cause real fears.
Let me cite two examples. Patricia Devlin, an award-winning crime reporter who works for the Sunday World newspaper, received a threat by direct message to her personal Facebook account. The sender threatened to rape her newborn son. It was signed with the name of the neo-Nazi terror group Combat 18, which has in the past had links to loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland.
It is not just journalists who work for national media outlets who are targeted. The political editor of the Liverpool Echo, Liam Thorp, has exposed the scale of threats against and abuse of journalists working in the regional media. A perpetrator was jailed for two and a half years over death threats made to Liam and another Echo employee.
The NUJ has broadly welcomed the “National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists” that the Government published this month, which stated:
“That there is a problem is undeniable. Too many journalists currently working in the UK do not feel safe from threats, abuse and physical harm”.
The words of Reporters Without Borders are cited in the plan:
“Harassing journalists has never been as easy as it is now.”
The NUJ will work with the Government and other partners on this issue to ensure the safety of journalists and that the strategy is implemented swiftly.
The cornerstones of any strategy to ensure that we have thriving, high-quality national and local journalism to uphold our democracy have to be not only firm legislative protections but a fully resourced independent media. An effective online safety Bill will be a critical component, but so will the securing of a stable future funding source for quality journalism. That is why the NUJ has thrown itself into the debate about not only the contents of the new legislation but the new funding opportunities to secure for the long term the quality journalism that is so critical to upholding our sense of community and our current democratic system.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
It is impossible to overstate how much social media has advanced and become an inescapable part of people’s lives over the past 15 years. It has made the world a smaller, more accessible place, radically changed expectations of access and, yes, opened up new avenues for abuse, grooming and extremism.
The circumstances of the pandemic have been a petri dish for conspiracies, disinformation and hate speech, especially towards east and south-east Asian people, as powerfully highlighted in this place by the campaigning work of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). It can seem that social media companies are too big, too global and too all-encompassing for us to be able to regulate or hold them to account, but we must demand standards and protections to ensure online safety.
The Community Security Trust noted in its most recent report that 44% of the 789 recorded antisemitic incidents between January and June 2020 occurred online, and the anti-extremism campaign HOPE not hate says that
“the far right’s use of the web to promote, plan and assist in terrorism is something HOPE not hate has increasingly witnessed in recent years.”
The Antisemitism Policy Trust is clear that anonymity encourages conversations to get more extreme, as it eliminates people’s desire to conform to social standards. The lessening of anonymity leads to more dialogue within social norms. Anonymity is the soil—or perhaps the manure—for growing extremism and abuse.
Of course, online abuse is not solely the preserve of anonymous accounts. Indeed, I have been subjected to a barrage of antisemitic, biphobic and other hateful harassment—including from candidates standing in this May’s local elections—co-ordinated by Warrington Conservative association in WhatsApp chats that were later leaked. Those people have been emboldened by a political culture that has become utterly toxic, fuelled and accelerated by anonymous online abuse becoming normalised.
In addition to the harassment—particularly of women and minority communities—that we have heard about, I am especially concerned about the increasing sexual exploitation and abuse of children and the increasing threat of far-right online radicalisation. Children now are vulnerable to grooming in ways that no previous generation has been. Expectations of internet access start earlier than ever, and as hardware is now miniaturised and literally mobile, it is more likely to be accessed away from parental oversight than a traditional family desktop computer was. The threat of communicating with strangers, of catfishing or of other unexpected contact from sexual predators is real.
Anonymity is not the only issue that must be tackled. We need to finely balance the many, varied and legitimate needs for anonymity with the need to address harms perpetrated by anonymous accounts. But the fact that it is difficult and complicated is not a reason not to tackle it; it makes the task more necessary and urgent. I welcomed the Government’s 2019 White Paper; the matter must not be delayed further and I hope that the Government will introduce legislation as soon as possible.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on an excellent introduction to the subject. I also wish to declare an interest as co-chair of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group. I will use the time that I have this afternoon to address some of the union’s concerns about the online abuse of journalists, as my good and right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) did a little earlier in the debate.
Many journalists, particularly freelancers, use social media platforms such as Twitter to promote their work and the work of their news organisation and, as such, many have been the subject of vile abuse, rape and even death threats, as my right hon. Friend mentioned earlier. Women in particular are targets, with those who write about traditionally male topics, such as sport, technology or gaming, often singled out for particular abuse.
Like the NUJ, I welcome the publication of the national action plan for the safety of journalists—it is long overdue—but there is still a lot of work to do. May I draw to the attention of the Minister and the hon. Member for Stroud the fact that the internal moderated guidelines that were leaked to The Guardian revealed that Facebook’s bullying and harassment policy explicitly allows for public figures to be targeted in ways otherwise banned by the site, including calls for their death, which is incredible.
The NUJ supports the need for much greater transparency and accountability from the tech giants in tackling the online abuse of journalists and, indeed, of public figures. Social media messaging organisations are simply not acting to stop this abuse or to ban serial offenders, and the NUJ quite rightly insists that the new regulatory framework must make clear to companies their responsibilities to address this online harm. Crucially, sanctions must exist, even against the tech giants, or perhaps especially against the tech giants, and applied if appropriate action is not taken. It is important to note that the online abuse of journalists is not always anonymous. The Government stated that improving public recognition of the value of journalists was a priority as part of their action plan. Public attacks by journalists on politicians also serve to undermine the public’s recognition of the value of journalists.
A thriving democracy requires a diverse press. Citizens making decisions in a democratic process must be properly informed. I hope that Ministers will meet with the NUJ ahead of the publication of the Bill to ensure that this is the case.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate on what is a growing concern for me, my constituents and Members across the House. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing this debate.
Social media platforms have connected us in a way that no one would have thought possible. From rapid instant messaging to sharing content on our everyday lives, we are immersed in readily accessible information and news in a way that our parents would have only dreamed of. In the past two decades, this immersion in an always on and always connected world has had another consequence. A study by the Turing Institute on online abuse in 2019 estimates that up to 40% of people in the UK have seen or been exposed to abusive content, and 10% to 20% have been targeted by abusive content. Worse still, that same year, Oxford Internet Surveys found that 27% of respondents had seen contents or imagery that were either cruel or hateful and that 10% had received abusive emails.
The ethnic breakdown makes for even more depressing reading: 41% of black respondents received abusive emails compared with just 7% of white respondents. That should come as no surprise to Members who witness this kind of content on a daily basis. They know all too well the sheer scale and impact that this abuse can have, particularly as this abuse is often anonymous and spread by accounts with peculiar user names with either eggs or silhouettes as profile pictures. While we must protect freedom of expression, there should be the same level of accountability for someone who commits abuse online as there is for someone who verbally abuses a person on the street. I know the strength of feeling across this issue in my own area, which is why I am supporting Coventry Youth Activists’ campaign for a change in Facebook’s policy so that it recognises hate speech and discrimination specifically targeting disabled people. At the moment, that form of discrimination is reported under the “other” category, which makes it seem acceptable and less important than other types of abuse. Tech giants can and must do more to protect the rights of their users to feel safe, both online and in their everyday lives, and their users’ free expression should not mean that they are free from consequences of their action. Social media companies can absolutely do more to make the online environment safer. They have the tools at their disposal, so do this Government. If the tech giants will not take action on it, it is up to the Government to give the regulators the resources and teeth they need to take appropriate actions to safeguard all users, so that social media platforms can be a place for people to truly feel safe.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
No. 33 has withdrawn, so we are moving to our final speaker from the Back Benches, Christine Jardine.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to have the last word from the Back Benches on this. Sadly, online abuse, the implications it can have and how we deal with it have become major issues in modern society, which are exacerbated by the availability of anonymity to bullies. Let us imagine what it would be like to come across a bully in a pub or a school and they could preserve their identity, so that very little could be done to bring them to justice for what they were doing. The figures we have on online bullying are frightening. One in five children has reported some form of online abuse in the past year. Sadly, we believe that many teenagers just do not report such abuse, as they see it as just part of society they have grown up with and something that is to be accepted. How depressing is that? Abuse, torment and threats have, apparently, for many of our young people become synonymous not only with social media, but with modern society and life. To those dealing with a mental health issue the implications of the stress of being subjected to a stream of abuse and bile is unthinkable. Vulnerabilities are exploited and deep-seated harm is caused. The mental health issues being faced by our young people are growing exponentially. It is not the work of genius to link the abuse they are suffering online with the impact it is having on their mental health. Age verification and education are important in reversing this trend, but we must also ensure that social media platforms take responsibility for what appears and, as many Members have said, we need stricter regulations.
One important thing we must also do is acknowledge that we have all suffered. I doubt any of us in this place have not been subject to online abuse from some anonymous source. We have to stand up and call it out. We have to recognise the scale of the problem that society is facing and the threat it poses to all of us, specifically to our young people. I urge the Government to take this on board and think about it every time; not just in specific legislation about social media or about the media, but in every piece of legislation where it could be important.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
Online abuse is a curse. Once upon a time when kids got bullied at school, that bullying stopped at the school gates. Even if they did not talk about their ordeals—and sadly, we know that many children feel that they cannot—back at home, in a loving household, they were safe. All that has changed with social media. Today, the bullies and trolls pursue their victims home and online. We know that this can be traumatic for children. We know that some have, tragically, taken their own lives as a result.
The sadism comes in many forms. Recently we have learned of the phenomenon of flashing GIFs posted and targeted at children with epilepsy, with the intention of causing seizures. Let that sink in for a moment— trolls targeting epileptic kids with potentially dangerous consequences, again, under the guise of anonymity. Paedophiles have exploited the internet since its inception. With false identities and ever more sophisticated software, young people can be entrapped by those pretending to be someone they are not.
As a member of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I have listened to evidence from the social media companies—TikTok, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. They all promise to target the problem, but they are all woefully unresponsive. I asked a TikTok boss recently why he was not more tenacious in tackling anti-vaccination disinformation targeted at young people. He said that his company had thousands of moderators hot on the heels of the anti-vaxxers. It only took me a few moments to find a TikTok account with hundreds of thousands of followers posting lies with impunity.
Politicians are not meant to moan, or we get called self-indulgent, but we all know the shocking abuse sent to women politicians in particular. When the First Minister Nicola Sturgeon revealed personal details of tragic miscarriages she had suffered, she was deluged by trolls mocking her or saying that she was lying about her family grief. A Holyrood magazine survey found that a third of MSPs had received a death threat, with a third of female MSPs receiving a threat of a sexual nature in addition. Before the 2019 election, a survey showed that many female MPs who were not standing again cited the abuse they received online as a major factor in their decision.
Misogyny, homophobia and racism have sadly always been a part of politics, but they are now magnified by the perfect poisonous storm: a huge worldwide audience and anonymity. I have had a wee taste of it myself recently. I praised online a young trans constituent of mine last year who had bravely spoken of her life in a BBC documentary. Almost instantly, a sinister organisation called the LGB Alliance began trolling me. It offered the reward of a retweet to anyone who donated money to it in my name. I was, as a result, deluged by abuse from anonymous accounts. I was called a rape enabler, a misogynist and, although I am an openly gay man, a homophobe. As an openly gay man, I was also called a “greasy bender”.
The LGB Alliance was thrown off the country’s two largest crowdfunders as a hate group, but Twitter would not take its account down, despite it clearly and egregiously violating Twitter’s own rules. I am a man in my 50s. The experience was not pleasant, but I was acutely conscious of all the young trans people reading the venom and despairing. They have, after all, been subjected to a vile online onslaught in recent weeks and months.
There can be no accountability in anonymity. Social media is now so ingrained in our lives that it cannot be allowed to continue without some form of verification. The cowards who send death threats or seizure-inducing messages or who attempt to groom children would not dare be so bold if we knew who they were, or at least if the social media companies knew who they were. Of course, the trolling does not exclusively come from the UK. Abuse, misinformation and disinformation flood in from Russian bots, attempting to undermine our values and democracy, and over the course of the pandemic, they threaten our health with covid disinformation.
Like the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), I believe that verification is the best way to protect people online. That does not mean that people—especially those who are vulnerable—should not be able to use a nom de plume, but social media users should have the option to prove their identity. That could come with an equivalent to the blue tick for verified profiles on Twitter. Such verification would allow us to know who we are interacting with online and know that those we talk to are who they say they are. Users would also then be able to decide whether to block all non-verified users. This would offer protection to parents worried about their children’s safety online, to those who wish to avoid Russian and other bots, and to all of us who would choose to talk only to real people.
Who among us does not seek to stem the avalanche of poison, abuse and disinformation? Will the social media companies embrace such proposals and self-enforce? The evidence suggests not. The Government need to get tough. Soft-touch regulation is not working.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) for securing this debate, which I know very many colleagues across the House wished to participate in. I, too, wish that we had had more time to listen to and debate this important aspect of online activity. As she so clearly articulated from personal experience, no woman should be prevented from doing her job because of online hate. Maternity leave is a hard-won right for women in this country—it was introduced by a Labour Government—and all women should be able to benefit from it without having to be subjected to abuse.
This has been a difficult debate to listen to, particularly the brave speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). The issues that this debate raises will resonate across the country because of the prevalence of online abuse. There were excellent contributions from Members across the House, including very thoughtful ones from my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi).
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) mentioned in her speech the charity Glitch, which found that almost half of women have reported experiencing online abuse since the beginning of the covid pandemic. Women from all walks of life are subjected to it, but particularly those in public life, from MPs to journalists to TV presenters.
Today’s debate has been a small snapshot of what has become a tsunami of vitriol, hate, misogyny and racism online, a cesspit that parts of public engagement online has sadly become. Just ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the journalist Nadine White or the rugby presenter Sonia McLaughlan. Glitch’s research found that 84% of its respondents experienced online abuse from strangers—a shocking statistic. Members know that much of the abuse directed at us is first seen by our staff, and that can and does take a huge toll on them. Why would any girl or young woman stand for elected public office or become a journalist or a television presenter if this is what awaits them? It erodes our democracy and it erodes our society.
There will always be people who spew anonymous hate and abuse. In past years, it would be a letter hand-written with capital letters and green ink, which required some effort and the cost of a stamp. In today’s world, people have the internet at their fingertips. They have become emboldened and they have been joined by many others, sadly mainly men, who take advantage of unregulated globally powerful and very wealthy online platforms—which are, incidentally, also run by men—to attack and abuse women. Those attacks are copied and amplified to the point where it is normalised within public discourse online.
What should we as politicians and policymakers do to improve the situation? I will make two suggestions to the House. First, leadership should be demonstrated in this House—we heard lots of examples of that this afternoon. When my former colleague Paula Sherriff asked the Prime Minister to moderate
“offensive, dangerous or inflammatory language”,—[Official Report, 25 September 2019; Vol. 664, c. 793.]
the Prime Minister dismissed her request as “humbug”. Many of us in this Chamber were there to hear that at first hand. The way we conduct ourselves in this House has an impact on the world outside. When Government Ministers attack journalists and falsely accuse them of bad practice, they open them up to abuse, too.
Secondly, platforms that facilitate and permit abusers to operate need to be subject to the same regulatory framework that is applied to products on the market that carry a risk of harm, or cause harm to those who use them. We need a product safety regulatory approach for online platforms in the same way as we have them for medicines or children’s toys, to name two examples. If a product has a risk of harm, then the owner, creator or manufacturer—whatever we want to call them—should take steps to mitigate or remove that risk in order to operate. We have heard plenty of examples this afternoon of failures by companies to prevent their platforms from hosting and amplifying abuse and attacks. Algorithms promote this, because algorithms feed the platforms’ business models. Justifiable complaints are ignored, and community standards are weak and not enforced.
As several hon. Members have mentioned, the latest in a long line of shockingly negligent examples concerning Facebook emerged yesterday when it was revealed that its bullying and harassment policy explicitly allows for public figures to be targeted in ways otherwise banned on the site, including through death threats, according to internal moderator guidelines that were leaked to The Guardian. The public figures identified by Facebook include people whose claim to fame may simply be a large social media following or infrequent coverage in local newspapers.
We have heard lots of agreement across the House that anonymous accounts that attack people or spread hate should not be amplified, but nor should those that are not anonymous. While there are legitimate reasons for people to use a pseudonym online, it is clear that those accounts should be limited in what they do, and that other users should be able to limit their interaction with them. This could be done by the platforms now; it could have been done years ago. There is far more that the platforms could do using technology to prevent abuse from being hosted in the first place, and also to take it down quickly when it is reported.
This is why the online safety Bill is so vital and so urgent, and why it is so important that we get it right, so that it is not superseded by technological advancements. That is why Labour backs a principles-based approach. Despite insisting last week that the new law was a priority, the Government have yet again delayed the Bill. Although we expect it to be announced in the forthcoming Queen’s Speech, it is now likely to be more than five years after it was first promised that it will come into law. This delay is inexcusable, because we know that behaviour online can translate to behaviour offline.
The watering down of the measures initially proposed has dripped slowly, very slowly, since the White Paper was published two years ago next month. Why, if the Government are serious about clamping down on this abuse, would they keep in reserve criminal sanctions for senior company executives where there are repeated or aggravated breaches of the legislation, rather than implementing them immediately, as Labour has called for? Why would the Government water down the original proposals so that companies will be encouraged to set minimum terms and conditions, as they will be judged on how they enforce them? That will incentivise completely the wrong approach.
The Bill, whenever it eventually arrives, cannot be a lost opportunity to reset the dial on our online discourse. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. We all recognise and largely agree on what the problems are, and many of us on both sides of the House agree on the solutions. Plenty of them were suggested today. The Government need to stop delaying, stop watering down, catch up with other countries that have taken the lead and get on with this legislation. What have we gained by waiting? Nothing. What is to be gained by waiting? Nothing. This House and the public are impatient to hear from the Government on this legislation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
I want to start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on tabling this important topic for debate. Online anonymity matters. It matters because it can give activists in oppressive regimes the means to organise. It matters because it can give whistleblowers the opportunity to speak out. It can give the uncertain teenager the means to research their sexuality or those who do not want to disclose it the option not to do so. It can give the most vulnerable in our society the chance to protect themselves from their abusers. But anonymity online can also give licence to those who threaten individuals, to those who threaten public figures and ultimately to those who threaten the foundational institutions of our economy and our democracy. We have heard powerful and shocking stories of that sort today.
Let us be clear: free speech is crucial, and a climate of fear creates a crisis for freedom of speech. That is why the Government’s online safety Bill is so important. For the first time, the social networks on which so much of this abuse is hosted will be required to enforce terms and conditions that ban abuse and protect free speech. That is important not just for anonymous abuse; it is important in tackling the abuse that is far too prevalent from those who use their real names, too. Abuse online or offline, anonymous or obviously identifiable, is not acceptable, and this Government are balancing the benefits of anonymity for those who need it, free speech and the right of every citizen to feel safe. Nobody, not even the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), should be free anywhere to call for people to be lynched.
Several Members—my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) and for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) and a host of others—have made compelling cases for the option to verify users’ identity when signing up to social media. Such an approach could bring benefits, not least the potential to more easily identify those involved in serious harm and abuse online. Ofcom will be exploring how platforms can meet the duty of care, and we must ensure that there are no safe spaces for criminals online, but at the same time we must be mindful of the arguments, particularly from those users who rely on anonymity to protect their safety online.
Grahame Morris
The Minister is very generous. I wonder whether he might address the point that was made by me and other hon. and right hon. Members regarding the threats and intimidation directed to members of the National Union of Journalists. I am sure he agrees that that is unacceptable. Would he agree to meet a delegation from the NUJ in advance of the publication of the Bill to listen to their concerns directly?
Matt Warman
As a former member of the NUJ, it would be churlish of me to reject such an invitation, and I know that we are keen to engage with the NUJ.
In December, we published the full Government response to the online harms White Paper consultation, which sets out the new expectations on companies to keep their users safe online. Services that host user-generated content or allow people to talk to others online will need to remove and limit the spread of illegal content, such as child sexual abuse and terrorist material. All companies will need to tackle illegal anonymous abuse on their services. All companies will need to assess the likelihood of children accessing their services and, if so, ensure additional protections. Companies with the largest audiences and high-risk features will have to take action in respect of content or activity on their services that is legal, but harmful to adults. That is because certain functionalities, such as the ability to share content or contact users anonymously, are more likely to give rise to harm. The regulator will set out how companies can fulfil their duty of care in codes of practice, including what measures are likely to be appropriate in the context of private communications. Users will be able to report anonymous abuse effectively, and should expect swift and effective responses from platforms.
The online safety Bill will be ready this year. Of course, the precise timings are subject to parliamentary time, but in the meantime we are already working closely with Ofcom to limit the implementation period to as short a period as possible. We want all parliamentarians to feed in to this significant piece of work, and I encourage the Members who have contributed today to do that. We will continue working with Members of both Houses, and we will continue to listen to their concerns as we move through the passage of this legislation.
We are also clear that companies should not wait for legislation to be in place to take action, so I want to talk briefly about the measures that platforms are taking. For example, Facebook allows users to protect themselves from unwanted interactions. Instagram allows businesses and creator accounts to switch off direct messages from people they do not follow. Twitter has introduced a feature to limit replies to followers, providing users with more control over who they interact with. All of this is good news, but more work needs to be done in this area to keep all users safe online.
I also want to mention the police’s legal powers to investigate abusive behaviours. The police can already identify individuals who attempt to use anonymity to escape sanctions for online abuse where the activity is illegal. The UK-US data access agreement, which will shortly come into effect, allows UK law enforcement agencies to directly request information. It will significantly reduce the time required to obtain data for cases involving serious crimes.
Of course, we recognise that the law must continue reviewing this area as well, ensuring that the police have the necessary tools at their disposal to investigate anonymous abuse online. The Government are undertaking a review with law enforcement to ensure that the current powers that they have are sufficient to tackle illegal abuse online, anonymous or otherwise. The outcome of that work will inform the Government’s position in relation to illegal anonymous abuse online and the online safety regulatory framework, as will the Law Commission reviews into existing legislation on abusive and harmful communications, including deepfakes. That report is expected later this year.
The Government are committed to tackling harms online, including harms perpetrated anonymously. We know that those harms are not evenly spread. We know that they disproportionately affect women, they disproportionately affect minorities, they disproportionately affect trans people. As has been said, they also disproportionately affect journalists. Anonymous abuse can have a significant impact on victims, whether they are members of the public or high-profile public figures.
The regulatory framework and the criminal law reforms will better protect all users online while also safeguarding freedom of expression, because it is vital that we get this legislation right. We want all parliamentarians to feed into this significant and important piece of work. We will continue to work with Members of both Houses, and we are confident that our approach, through the online safety framework and the criminal law review, will tackle online abuse, including abuse perpetrated anonymously. I pay tribute to all those Members who have so powerfully brought the need to do so home to us all today.
Siobhan Baillie
I have been asked to be brief, so I will. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate to go ahead. They rightly challenged me as to whether there should be another debate led by me on this subject in a matter of months, but given that it was oversubscribed and given the passion that we have heard today, I think they can see the importance. I thank the sponsors, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).
We heard the Minister rightly recognise the calls for verification, although we did not quite hear about the steps that could be taken and the importance of anonymity. I hope that the Minister and the DCMS team will meet me and a small number of Members to discuss that further, and perhaps set up a meeting with the tech companies so that we can talk that through. My thanks to everybody who has contributed; I am really chuffed with the support today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered online anonymity and anonymous abuse.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We will have a very short, two-minute suspension to make the necessary arrangements, and then move swiftly on to the next debate.
Covid-19: Hospitality Industry
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for the hospitality industry throughout the covid-19 pandemic.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for co-sponsoring it. Without a doubt, the hospitality sector has been one of the hardest hit throughout the ongoing covid-19 pandemic. It will have been shut for 10 out of 14 months when it eventually reopens. I do not believe that many of us foresaw that a year ago when we entered the first lockdown.
Support for the sector is extensive across the House, as shown by the number of contributors today. This debate is almost as booked up as I understand much of the hospitality sector itself is, when allowed to reopen. With that in mind, I will keep my remarks brief and will not take interventions, to enable as many colleagues as possible to speak.
In 2019, the hospitality sector contributed £59.3 billion in gross value added to the UK economy—around 3% of total UK economic output. At the start of last year, there were almost a quarter of a million hospitality businesses in the UK. The sector is vital to my North Devon constituency, which is proud to boast 105 pubs, with almost 10% of all businesses being in the hospitality sector.
The latest research by UKHospitality shows that the sector will have lost £86 billion in revenue by the end of March 2021, down 68% on pre-pandemic figures. It would have been more were it not for the unprecedented support packages given by the Chancellor, combined with the innovation shown by the sector in adapting their businesses to become covid compliant, increase outdoor capacity, and become take-outs. Our North Devon “Take Out to Help Out” competition saw thousands of residents vote to support their favourite take-out that has helped them through lockdown, and many congratulations to the winner, Nartnapa Thai Kitchen in Lynton.
The sector is also wracked with coronavirus-related debt—an estimated £2 billion in rent debt and £6 billion in loans and other finance—which makes the recovery that bit more challenging. As someone who ran a debt-financed small business for 15 years, I know the toll that that type of balance sheet can take on small and medium-sized businesses, of which the sector has so many, and the extra pressure that it puts on achieving profitability, particularly for seasonal businesses that are so dependent on their summers to see them through the lean winter months.
Even assuming that the road map stays on track, the sector cannot fully reopen until 21 June. Some 60% of pubs may not reopen on 12 April, despite the Government’s relaxing regulations to enable them to trade outdoors more easily. That will mean that the support will taper off before there is a full return to profitability, which is forecast to take at least six months after the restrictions are fully removed. In short, the Government support may be ending too early relative to their lockdown-lifting road map.
This summer will no doubt be busy for UK hospitality. We know that pubs are one of the top three reasons tourists visit the UK, so their survival is linked to our inbound tourism and its associated economic benefits. As we move into winter, wet-led pubs in particular are very dependent on their locals returning to the bar, which we know did not happen to historical levels last winter. Going back to the pub is a much easier ask than so many of the others that we have endured over the last year, but have our behaviours fundamentally changed during the pandemic? I hope not, as in many rural villages in constituencies such as mine the pub is the heart and soul of the village. We need to ensure that they can return to their former vibrancy at last orders.
Calls are increasing for a review of beer duty to target support into our pubs, bars, and clubs, which could be balanced with duty rises in the off-trade, given the ever growing debt that the country is in. The Chancellor has shown throughout this pandemic how quickly he and his colleagues in the Treasury can pivot and adapt to create new lifelines for businesses. While I pay tribute to his excellent work, perhaps the job is not yet done for hospitality.
I believe that a draught beer duty would be targeted, quickly actioned support and could play a crucial role in stopping so many of our vibrant pubs and other hospitality businesses from going under later in the year. Our pubs provide a safer environment for alcohol consumption than elsewhere, and we should do all we can to encourage people to return safely as soon as possible.
There are now 600,000 fewer jobs in the sector than before covid hit our shores, despite the unprecedented support of furlough. As hospitality businesses look to reopen, I hope that they will engage with the new Government packages to get people back into work, such as the kickstart scheme, and reach out to their local Jobcentre Plus. I know that in rural North Devon, hospitality businesses have not always engaged with their local jobcentre, with local ads or posters in the window historically sufficing, but a wide range of highly qualified people are now unfortunately looking for work and vacancies may well be filled more rapidly through this route than those pre-pandemic.
There are other areas in the broader hospitality sector whose pandemic has also been problematic, such as our contract caterers and wholesalers. These businesses were not required to close, but their trade has been limited mostly to the public sector, and they have unfortunately missed out on many grant payments. Breweries, especially local microbreweries such as GT Ales in Wrafton, despite reinventing themselves for home delivery, have had a challenging time.
The wedding industry and its supply chain, quite rightly, have been repeatedly highlighted as a sector in need, the important big day being intricately linked with hospitality. It is estimated that more than 200,000 weddings have been either cancelled or postponed since the first lockdown and that the sector to date has lost at least £6.4 billion, a figure that continues to rise. It is fair to say that the hospitality sector has received an unprecedented level of support across VAT reductions, business rate holidays, grants, loans, the job retention scheme, the freezing of alcohol rates and a wealth of other measures.
I have been in contact with my local hospitality sector and the national hospitality sector throughout this pandemic, and I very much hope that dialogue will continue as we emerge and build back better. The Chancellor said that he would do “whatever it takes” and indeed he has, but to prevent our vital and much loved hospitality sector suffering from long covid, they may just need a little more creative support in the coming months.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now have a three-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches. That will be on the screen in the Chamber and on screens virtually.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
For my three minutes, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the night-time economy, I want to focus on the night-time hospitality sector, which has been pretty much completely closed for over a year, but which makes a massive contribution to our economy and our tourism sector. Our recent APPG inquiry looked at the effect of the pandemic on the night-time economy and we found that without urgent support, many nightlife businesses could be lost. We are at the critical point. Lots of venues have just about survived until now but they are racking up debts and they need help, so I want to raise five issues briefly.
First, on debt, many businesses will be in arrears for rent, utility and other costs by the time that they can reopen and, when they reopen, creditors will expect to be paid. We need a solution for that amassed commercial debt, whether that is a shared burden approach to debt, as we have seen elsewhere, or support for long-term restructuring so that debt does not need to be paid off until businesses are able to do so over the long term.
We need specific sector support for businesses that have been hit harder than in almost any other sector and will not be able to fully reopen straightaway, and for individuals. Disproportionate numbers in the hospitality and events sectors are self-employed. Many still fall into the gaps in support and there is a strong case for extending the job retention scheme for the hospitality industry until summer 2021.
We need support from the culture recovery fund. It is a great idea, but the culture recovery fund has had a limited impact on night-time venues. Of £1.57 billion, only 12 nightclub-type venues have received funds. These are cultural hubs at the heart of our city and town centres and we need to look at the criteria for future support.
On the reopening plan, the Government set out a road map to reopening, which is welcome, but venues need to be able to open at the capacity that makes them viable, so it is important that the Government work quickly with the sector on testing or other mitigations that can allow venues to open. I am worried that the test events that are part of the events research programme are not fully worked up yet. To make that happen, there has to be close partnership with the industry as soon as possible.
Finally, security is a key challenge for the sector, and I do not think that has yet been fully recognised. Because of covid, lots of security professionals have had to look for alternative jobs and many do not want to risk coming back to an uncertain future. Six in 10 late-night door supervisor positions are at risk of not being filled. That is important because venues rely on them to fulfil their licence requirements and cannot open without them. There will be high demand for the small numbers of door staff and we need to look at support and a solution.
I just have time to mention event cancellation insurance. Without a Government-backed insurance scheme, many festivals and big events will cancel this summer. France, Holland, Austria, Switzerland and Germany have all introduced some sort of Government-backed scheme. We need one to protect our world-leading events.
Nightclubs and music venues bring joy and a sense of community to our cities and towns. We cannot let these vital businesses fold. It jeopardises our wider economic recovery and leads to a massive cultural as well as economic loss to our country.
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing this important debate, and I agree with the many important points that she made. The unprecedented support that this Government have provided to hospitality businesses over the past year has undoubtedly saved many jobs and livelihoods across my constituency of Burton and Uttoxeter. However, there is still much more that can be done to help this industry recover from the biggest crisis that it has ever suffered.
Over the past few years, we have seen the slow decline of our high streets, as habits have changed and online shopping has taken over. We must not allow the same thing to happen to our community pubs and the breweries that support them. Supermarkets have stayed open and continued to meet the needs of shoppers during this period of lockdown, but as we follow the road map and restrictions ease, we must ensure that our local pubs are able and willing to welcome us back.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the high street’s “Shop Local” campaign, but will he support Carling’s campaign to “Support Your Local”? As colleagues will know, I am proud to represent the historic brewing town of Burton-on-Trent, where Carling is brewed by local people. The campaign highlights the role of the local pub—a place where old stories are remembered and new ones are made, and the best place for a nice cold pint, but much more than that, a place that is at the heart of our communities.
Pubs play a huge role in all our constituencies. They provide significant employment opportunities for young adults and are at the centre of our towns and villages. In Burton, pubs and breweries take centre stage in our town’s heritage. Over the past year, they have been working tirelessly to ensure that they keep customers safe, and so many have gone beyond their usual remit to support their communities throughout the pandemic.
The £352 billion package of support provided by the Government, including for the hospitality industry, has ensured that the sector has survived the difficulties of the past year, but we must recognise the wider role that the British pub plays in our communities and ensure that pubs not only survive but thrive in our neighbourhoods, supporting jobs and growth in local areas.
The Chancellor announced that beer duty would be frozen this year, but I urge the Minister to look at the benefits of a new draught-beer duty rate specifically targeting wet-led community pubs and breweries, which have not been recipients under other policies. Many pubs and bars are in a perilous financial position, and many will not survive without help. I hope that, during the forthcoming review of alcohol duty, the Minister will reflect on these arguments and help to level the playing field between the price of beer sold in social community settings and cheap supermarket alcohol consumed at home.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this important debate. I will make just a couple of points, on dates and on data.
Earlier this afternoon, I rang a friend who runs the Griffin Inn in Sussex to ask about this, and he said that dates are vital. We must stick to any dates that we have. Over Christmas, of course, many establishments lost enormous amounts of money buying in stock that they then could not use. In his case, I think it was £25,000-worth of stuff.
On data, some people are having a very good time of it. Supermarkets are making a fortune. Pubs and hospitality have been amazingly supported by the Government, but we must not forget the point made by Ian Eldridge, who runs a restaurant in my constituency called Bartellas, that they still have enormous costs. They have employer contributions, lease purchase deals and lots of monthly contracts, and of course they also have maintenance.
My second point on data is a plea to the Minister and, indeed, the Prime Minister: things do seem to be going, thank God, in a very good direction in terms of hospitalisation and deaths, and if we can unlock hospitality earlier, let us not be dogmatic about it—let us do it. Let us reopen well-run hospitality, because I would much prefer my constituents to be drinking there than cramped in their front rooms.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Like others, I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this very important debate.
I agree with a lot of the points that have been made by hon. Members who have spoken, but would like to add a few more. Despite the unprecedented support from every level of government, including the Welsh Government and local authorities, yesterday’s Office for National Statistics data offered quite a sobering reminder of the devastating impact that the pandemic continues to have on businesses and employment in Wales. A year into lockdown, the Welsh unemployment rate has risen by 1.1%, while Wales’s perennially high economic inactivity rate has reached 24.4%, meaning that a quarter of the Welsh workforce is either not in employment or not seeking employment. I hope this debate will be a helpful reminder to Government of the importance of the hospitality sector both as an opportunity for jobs and for the way in which it helps particular regions, particularly coastal and rural areas, where other opportunities are sadly fewer and further between.
Before the pandemic, the hospitality sector contributed £59.3 billion to the UK economy and employed over 2.3 million workers across the UK. That in itself speaks for the significant contribution that the sector makes, but it was also an important gateway into the labour market for younger workers, with approximately one in 14 young adults employed in the pub and brewing sector alone. This sector is particularly important in rural areas such as my constituency of Ceredigion, where approximately 4,500 people, or 17% of the local workforce, are employed directly by the hospitality sector. It is worth noting that the sector, through local procurement and purchases from wholesalers such as Harlech Foodservice and Castell Howell, plays an important role in supporting the wider economy and rural incomes. Businesses in the hospitality supply chain, from food wholesalers and breweries to culinary suppliers and contract caterers, have not received as much attention, but they are essential for the success of the sector and should be supported by the Government.
While this month’s Budget contained several welcome measures for hospitality, I again urge the Chancellor to extend the 5% rate of VAT to the full financial year rather than six months and to consider proposals for a specific draught-beer duty to encourage on-premises consumption—a point that has been made very effectively by other hon. Members. Such measures would help to ensure that hospitality businesses can make the most of the upcoming summer season. Hopefully we can all look forward to a summer of unlocking. With potentially several months of restrictions, in various forms, to come, I urge the Government to be attentive to the needs of hospitality as a pivotal employer and significant economic multiplier. Particularly for those people in areas hardest hit by the pandemic, its survival is essential for post-pandemic recovery.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing this debate.
There is no doubt that it is thanks to the Government’s support schemes that we have been able to prevent many local hospitality businesses from being lost. Having worked with hundreds of them, I know that local businesses always have their employees and our community at heart. In turn, we in North Lincs value them and their ties with the community, with places like Mulligans Sports Bar sponsoring local darts, snooker and pool teams. Many of my local hospitality businesses did not let a pandemic stand in the way of their helping people. I could list many examples our area can be proud of. For example, the hospital’s sports and social club opened up space for NHS staff to use for meetings. The Shires and many, many other pubs have provided hot food options for those at home. Pubs such as the Queen’s Head in Kirton have provided lunch for volunteers and health workers in our vaccination centre.
Many local hotels provided accommodation to NHS workers and worked with North Lincolnshire Council to provide a place to stay for those who faced homelessness. Many businesses were able to innovate. The Black Door in Scunthorpe, for example, has worked to share its door-to-door cocktails idea with businesses across the country. Many venues started offering takeaway and delivery options. Some even generously offered their space for vaccinations to take place. Venues such as the Old School in Messingham kept us really entertained with their uplifting social media posts. After a long, imposed state of slumber, hospitality businesses in Scunthorpe are raring to open. From Hibaldstow to Ashby, from Bottesford to Howsham, local business owners are preparing their teams and their premises to go back to work—but they still need help.
Moving forward, I urge the Government to continue to carefully review existing restrictions, ending them as soon as we can. I once again urge Ministers to provide further guidelines for the weddings industry, to allow socially distanced on-site look-arounds at places such as beautiful Cleatham Hall in my constituency, where there is space to operate safely. I ask Ministers to review support for kennels and catteries; to open up the kickstart scheme for long-standing clubs; and to consider suggestions for draught-beer duty relief. I welcome the expansion of the self-employment income support scheme eligibility criteria, but I hope that Ministers can work with colleagues in the Treasury to bring forward the date on which the fourth grants can be awarded, as many self-employed in my area need this support now.
Thanks to the incredible support package and some real northern grit, many hospitality businesses in my area are still with us. They are now pumping up the tyres at the speedway, stocking up the fridges in our restaurants, and polishing their pint glasses in our pubs. We must continue to support them so that on this beautiful spring day, we really can look forward to brighter months ahead, and a chance to build back these valued businesses in Scunthorpe.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) [V]
Hospitality businesses in my constituency have had an enormously difficult year: not only have they been closed for many months, but when they have been allowed to open, they have faced a constantly changing set of rules and regulations. Many have not received the financial support they needed from the Government, and many are fearful for their future. I only have time to mention a couple of them, but their struggles are shared by countless other businesses across my constituency.
In December of last year, I visited the Abbey Arms in Abbey Wood as part of small business Saturday. Staff there told me about the challenges they faced and their uncertainty about the future. Of course, not long after that, all pubs were once again required to close. Other pub owners in my constituency have contacted me, including the owners of The Duchess of Kent in Erith and The Victoria in Belvedere. They need assurances from the Government that they will be treated fairly in the future and provided with support to reopen. The coming months will be particularly difficult for pubs and other venues with no outdoor space. Can the Minister set out what he will do to help these businesses? A great number of my constituents are rightly concerned about the future of their local pubs. Pubs are centres of our communities, and the Government urgently need to set out how they will help pubs not just to reopen, but to thrive, in the coming months and years.
The wedding and events sector has been extremely hard hit. Local family businesses have had to fight to survive over the past year, as nearly all their usual business has disappeared. Many businesses in the events sector have been repeatedly refused grant funding by Bexley council, which cites the Government’s tight criteria. These are businesses that have been allowed to fall through the cracks. The Government must look again at what more funding can be provided to help these businesses restart as restrictions allow. Of course, behind each of these businesses are people who have taken risks to start small businesses and contribute to our economy, our community, the people they employ and the supply chain of which they are part.
Hospitality workers are disproportionately likely to be women or from an ethnic minority background, and just this week, the Office for National Statistics published statistics showing that people under 25 account for 60% of the jobs lost since February 2020. The human toll of the pandemic has taken many forms, but we must not forget those who have lost their jobs or their businesses. We need action from the Government right now to ensure the hospitality industry is properly supported.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
At long last, we find ourselves in the final stretch of the long war with covid-19. Thanks to the tireless efforts of NHS staff and volunteers, vaccination rates are soaring, and many of us are now eagerly looking forward to the gradual relaxation of lockdown measures and the reopening of shops, cafés, restaurants and pubs. However, for much of the hospitality industry, the next few months will be fraught with uncertainty and worry. Independent businesses up and down our high streets are in the midst of an intense cash crisis. Grants and loans have been exhausted; proprietors are being forced to defer bills and mortgage payments; over half of businesses in the accommodation and food services industry have just three months’ cash reserves; and many small businesses find themselves burdened with unmanageable levels of debt that could well sink our economic recovery. Once again, this Government are failing to do what is needed to protect the hospitality industry.
Time and again I have called in the House for a comprehensive package of support that gives owners and workers much needed security and peace of mind in the challenging months ahead. Instead, all this Government have delivered are piecemeal measures that have left much of the hospitality industry barely able to keep its head above water. Businesses today have access to lower levels of financial support than they did at the start of the pandemic, despite finding themselves in far more severe financial trouble. The Government were far too late in extending the furlough scheme and business rate relief—a delay that needlessly cost jobs. The March Budget contained no measures whatsoever to assist small businesses with much-needed debt restructuring.
The impact on workers has been devastating. Prior to the pandemic, more than 3 million people—8% of the entire UK workforce—worked in hospitality. Over the last year, a wave of redundancies has swept the sector, with the youngest and lowest-paid workers bearing the brunt. Our economic recovery will be built on the backs of small businesses and our local high streets. We now need decisive action that gives independent businesses confidence in the future, and safeguards people’s livelihoods.
That is why Labour is calling for an ambitious high streets fightback fund that will give much-needed assistance to those businesses that have been most devastated by the pandemic. Labour’s plans will stop small to medium-sized enterprises being swallowed by a black hole of debt, by allowing businesses to start repaying Government loans only when they begin to grow again. Businesses must also be allowed to convert debts into employee ownership trusts, giving workers a real stake in the future of their workplaces. We must also create the conditions that allow local shops to compete with online retailers on a more equal footing, and give local authorities the powers they need to fill empty units as a means of revitalising our neglected high streets. Finally, we need action to tackle the scourge of low pay and insecure work that has plagued the hospitality industry for far too long. That means ensuring that every employee is paid at least the minimum wage and has a guaranteed number of hours each week.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
May I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) has eloquently set out the substantial measures that the Government have put in place to support the hospitality industry, but where a sector is affected, there is also a massive impact on its supply chain. Over the past eight months, consumers have purchased their food in supermarkets. They have moved from out-of-home to in-home consumption, and supermarkets have done well, especially those selling foods, wines and beers that were previously available only at people’s local pub or restaurant.
There is an assumption that suppliers to the hospitality industry have been able to pivot to create products for the retail sector, but that is not the case. Many product lines are dedicated to hospitality, which has led to many suppliers losing stock through its going out of date and being wasted. Large quantities of cask ales have been poured away. Even when goods are not date-sensitive there are seasonal stocks, and suppliers have found that capital has been tied up in stock in warehouse space.
Wholesale suppliers work in high-volume, low-margin businesses with high fixed costs, meaning that a small fall in sales has a disproportionate impact on profitability. Many suppliers also have the challenge of customers who are unable to pay. Cash sales from one period are often used to pay suppliers for goods delivered in the previous period, and to that extent, many suppliers to the hospitality sector are acting as banks and funding their customers. Suppliers are unable to take action if a hospitality business simply does not have the cash.
I do not call for specific support for suppliers. The best outcome for suppliers is for their customers, and the hospitality sector, to get trading again. The road map out of lockdown gives us the date of 12 April for reopening outdoor hospitality, but that will be available only to limited outlets, such as those with pub gardens or big areas of pavement space in front of them. Therefore, 17 May, when indoor hospitality opens, will be a much more significant date. We know from previous experience that hospitality businesses can put in place measures to keep customers safe. They still have screens, which are often still in place, and they are ready with supplies of sanitiser and wipes.
The key date of 21 June is when all restrictions will be lifted. Some are calling for the dates to come forward. I think that certainty is more important than doing it early. All businesses need time to get their plans in place, so let us give them that certainty. I ran a business, and I do not see how it is possible to manage a business without knowing when the customers will be there to receive the goods. The hospitality sector is looking forward to getting back to business, serving its customers, getting staff back into work, helping to get the economy moving again, rebuilding its supply chain and bringing people together, which it can do in a safe and secure manner.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing the debate. First, I want to mention a business in the town of Tain in my constituency called Platform 1864, which is a restaurant and pub run by a man called Graham Rooney. Graham Rooney started some years ago with absolutely nothing—not two beans to rub together—and he built the business up. He is a damn good chef. Then the pandemic hit, and we thought, “What’s going to happen to poor Graham?” It was exactly as the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) said: he went into the takeaway business. People go online, order their scoff, and then he delivers it. My mouth waters when I think of his roast beef and Yorkshire pud, and my wife loves his prawn paella. He has traded his way out of the situation.
Jamie Stone
There is nothing like a free advert in the House of Commons—whether I will get a free takeaway, I rather doubt; we shall see.
My constituency depends on the tourism industry, and the tourism industry depends on the hospitality industry. We have been in terror of any one of these businesses shutting down forever, because if that were to happen, it would impoverish the tourism product that we offer to visitors. The visitors would then say, “It’s not so much fun coming,” and they will not come, and we could end up in a downward spiral. Keeping these businesses going is utterly crucial.
I will conclude by mentioning another business, this time in the north of my constituency: Mackays Hotel in Wick. It is a great and famous old hotel, and it is owned by a man called Murray Lamont. He has been very wise in the way he has conducted himself. I would ring him up every so often during the pandemic to ask, “How’s it going, Murray?” He is a brave man; he would say, “We’re going to get through this.” I so admire the spirit of people like Graham Rooney and Murray Lamont.
Murray has four things that he wants me to mention in the Chamber. First, let us not shut off the reduced VAT rate too soon, because it is a life saver; I give thanks to the Government where it is due. Secondly, clarity on rules about reopening and travel would be invaluable. Where the Scottish Government are saying one thing and the UK Government are saying another—and sometimes we wonder whether it is done to deliberately contradict the UK Government—that is not helpful. Thirdly, a package for capital investment would be helpful. Finally, we need to get back into training, because too many people are leaving the profession, and the profession will be denuded if it cannot offer the standard of cooking, service and so on. Let us hope we get through this pandemic, which we surely will, and let us hope we have a vibrant hospitality business to hit the ground running when the time comes.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this important debate. I am a Devonian born and bred. When I think about my home county, I think about the breath-taking views on the south-west coast path. I think of the vast swathes of the Jurassic coast, rolling countryside, Georgian seaside towns and beautiful villages stretching from Sidmouth to Exmouth. But not just the views make me smile. The warm welcome that visitors receive in our towns and villages—in the cafés, pubs, restaurants and hotels—also makes me smile.
The hospitality industry is the lifeblood of East Devon’s towns and villages, which I am incredibly proud to represent. There is no doubt that, without the financial support the Government have provided, many of the places that residents and visitors enjoy simply would not be around to reopen their doors. That financial support kept staff on the books, helped pay the rent and paused other payments and bills. I am pleased that the Government will inject extra cash into the industry with restart grants, as well as extending cuts to VAT and business rates. We must continue to recognise how vital the hospitality industry is and consider further steps to help the sector.
Everyone who works in the industry is an ambassador for both my county and our country. Straight after the Budget, I joined a call with hotel owners in Sidmouth, who welcomed the measures that the Chancellor announced. However, recruitment and retention remain a challenge. It is quite right that the Government want businesses to invest in their domestic workforce—to train them up and improve local skills—but it is also about getting across the message that hospitality is a skilled and rewarding career.
Working in hospitality involves a positive attitude and a strong work ethic. Many locally who started out in hospitality by taking a seasonal job to earn some extra money have risen to become integral parts of the management teams in their venues, or have started new ventures with experience that they gained. I will continue to work on this issue with businesses in East Devon and to look at ways the Government can ensure that the new, fairer immigration system works for them.
I have lost count of the number of times that I have raised the need for continued financial support for the hospitality industry with Ministers and on the Floor of the House. I am glad they heard the calls and responded in the Budget. People should have every confidence that they can go back into cafés, pubs, restaurants and hotels when they reopen, whether to meet friends and family or to have a quiet drink after what has been an exceptionally difficult year for us all. I am sure everyone will be welcomed safely back to East Devon.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank my co-sponsor of this debate, the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for her excellent opening speech.
The hospitality sector is where we celebrate, mourn, catch up, hold work and community events, raise money for good causes, or just grab a bite when there is no time to cook or when we are travelling. Hounslow borough has 630 hospitality sector businesses—restaurants and cafés, pubs and bars, hotels and many more. Some have been able to open for some of the pandemic, but others—particularly wet-led pubs, wedding caterers, large events venues and party organisers—have been completely closed for the majority of the time. The pandemic has had a huge impact on the whole sector, and many businesses may not reopen.
The pandemic and the uncertain future falls hard on the low-paid, who dominate the hospitality sector, as do the under-25s. Hospitality workers are more likely to have lost their jobs than have been furloughed, so they make up a significant proportion of the skyrocketing number of universal credit claims—there are more than 17,000 claimants in my constituency. Behind each one of our hospitality businesses are many others in the supply chain: from companies that provide towels and cleaning to taxis, musicians, event organisers, wholesale food suppliers and many more—businesses that have missed out on most of the covid relief schemes.
Until a year ago, the hotels in Hounslow and west London, being close to Heathrow, were full to the brim. However, the huge drop in international travel and the travel and tourism sector has had a huge impact, including for a business in Isleworth that makes airline food and has written to me. Again, I urge the Government to provide aviation communities such as Hounslow with the support that they desperately need.
Across the whole hospitality sector we are seeing great, viable businesses that are on the brink or have gone under because of the lack of timely and adequate support. I do wonder whether anyone in the Government has ever run a business anything like the ones that Members are concerned about.
By contrast, I pay tribute to the work done by Hounslow Council to support businesses in the hospitality sector. The council has developed a hospitality reopening safely toolkit; provided face-to-face business support to help with the reviewing and adaptation of premises; run recover and regrow courses online, which have built resilience; and helped to showcase the Shop Safe, Shop Local campaign, which has encouraged people to support our amazing local independent businesses.
I hope the Government will promise to listen to those in the sector and give them a clear and long-term plan, as the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) said. They should bring in many of the other elements described today by Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), so that we can move forward to what are hopefully better days for the sector.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this debate and thank her for doing so.
The past 12 months have made us all appreciate things that we took for granted, and many of us are now desperate to get back to our hospitality sector. Whether it is our local pub or coffee shop or the favourite meal that we always order at the same restaurant, there can be no doubt that we have all missed such simple pleasures.
Our hospitality sector has been amazing over the past 12 months. As restrictions changed and came and went, businesses jumped through hoops to keep their staff safe and to welcome customers safely. They should be highly commended for that effort. Many have adapted their services, morphing into takeaway food outlets or offering home deliveries of afternoon teas or Sunday roasts. Even though times were bad for them, many still found time to help others, and I want to make special mention of the landlord of the Ashmore Inn, Kevin Ward, who set up a food bank in Ashmore Park. When I visited the Ashmore Inn, I was struck by Kevin’s typical Black Country spirit of helping other people and of community. The sense of community we have in our pubs in Wolverhampton and in the wider Black Country is something very special. In my maiden speech, I spoke of an epidemic of loneliness as our society changed and this is one reason I cherish our pubs, as lifelong friendships flourish. I talk to so many older people who have drunk in the same pub with the same group of friends for decades.
Although on occasion I did take issue in this place with the level of support to our wet-led pubs, I would like to thank the Government for the wide range of schemes to support our hospitality industry—there are too many to list. I also want to welcome the welcome back fund. Wolverhampton has secured £230,000 to get high streets and our city centre ready for summer and really help our hospitality industry to recover. I gently ask, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon did, that dialogue continues with industry bodies such as UKHospitality, CAMRA—the Campaign for Real Ale—the Society of Independent Brewers and the BFBi, based in my constituency, so that we can continue to look for any more help that might be needed, whether through extensions to VAT cuts, measures on business rates or other means. I have written to the Chancellor asking him to consider a cut in duty for beer served in pubs. That could be entirely funded by adding a small cost to beer purchased in supermarkets.
Despite the awful time for hospitality, I am an optimist. With the vaccination programme rolling out and summer coming, I look forward to getting back to one of the many fantastic restaurants, cafés and pubs in Wolverhampton.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
Pre covid, the number of people who worked in Greater Manchester’s night-time economy alone stood at 414,000, which is 33% of Greater Manchester’s workforce, but as the rest of the country emerged from the first lockdown last year Greater Manchester was quickly propelled back into restrictions, with limited financial support. Half of businesses now do not expect to break even until the end of 2021. The insolvency risk has grown month on month in the sector and is now at its highest point since at least April 2020. UKHospitality predicts that a failure to act now to solve the rent crisis could trigger thousands of hospitality businesses to fail across the UK.
So what must the Government do? There are a few urgent steps they could take today. First, they could ensure that the millions still excluded from Government support receive financial support equivalent to the self-employment income support scheme and that this support is backdated. Secondly, they could provide Government-backed insurance and event cancellation insurance to give businesses and events full confidence to reopen and plan for the future when restrictions lift. Thirdly, they could provide an urgent and significant sector support package for hospitality, events and tourism, including a Government-backed solution to spiralling rent and commercial debt arrears, and revisit the business rates cap, which unfairly penalises large numbers of hospitality businesses, which will find themselves paying full rates just days after restrictions are fully lifted in June.
Fourthly, the Government could protect local brewers and micro-pubs by stopping the tax hike in proposed changes to the small brewers relief and review beer duty. Lastly, they could protect workers by ensuring that the furlough scheme can run for as long as it is needed; increasing statutory sick pay to a level that people can actually live on; and setting up a hospitality commission to identify a sector recovery plan as well as investigate unscrupulous and exploitative practices where they are found in the industry, such as fire and rehire and the denigration of employment terms.
All we ask for in Greater Manchester is the ability to protect jobs and income while we keep people safe and get back on our feet. So if the Government want to back their levelling-up rhetoric with real action, they will provide the economic support our workers and businesses need.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this debate. We all know that, in the west country, hospitality is very important. It is responsible for many, many jobs. How quickly we get back to normal will depend on what levels of unemployment we have in our constituencies. I commend the Government for what they have done. When they had to work rapidly on the schemes to support people—whether it be the furlough scheme or the self-employment grant—they did so very efficiently. The whole British Government have been more functional and more efficient than I might have thought before the start of this crisis. When they have had to act, they have done so quite swiftly.
Where I have a slight difference with the British Government, which is why my voting record on one or two occasions has not been wholly in line with lockdown, is that I am still not convinced that hospitality and non-essential retail are as big a problem as the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies and others have suggested. Many of these businesses were running in the summer in a very covid-friendly way—many were encouraged to invest in being covid-safe. I still believe that they are a soft target that has been closed down too quickly.
The Government could make amends by looking at the data, considering the situation and, perhaps, speeding up the opening up of hospitality. There are some big groups in hospitality, but there are also an awful lot of small businesses. There are some people who retire on a pension to run a pub or a restaurant which is really a labour of love as much as it is a profitable business. We need to get them open and functioning as quickly as possible.
I welcome the fact that pubs and restaurants will be able to open up outside on 12 April, but, looking at the data, I cannot see why they should have to wait a further five weeks before taking on inside trade. It is even longer for hotels and other parts of the sector.
My call on the Government today is to look at the data. With the vaccination programme going the way that it is—fingers crossed that that continues—we could get hospitality open very quickly. Everything is interdependent. The shopping areas in my constituency do best when there are pubs, bars and restaurants nearby, and pubs, bars and restaurants do best when the shopping areas are open. The area also does well when the caravan sites are open, which, thank goodness, they will be on 12 April, because that brings in thousands of people. Therefore, if we take out a whole sector, it has a major impact on the community.
The hospitality sector is important for jobs, particularly for young people who have suffered during this pandemic. We need to nurse this area back to health and I hope that the Government do so by speeding up the unlock and getting people back to business.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) [V]
I send my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for securing this important debate.
My constituency of Clacton is all about tourism. Much of it was created for tourism. Hospitality is the cornerstone of our tourism offer, employing thousands of people and delivering hundreds of millions of pounds to the economy. Hospitality businesses—be they bed and breakfasts, hotels, cafés, bars, or pubs—can be found up and down our sunshine coast. In fact, according to the results of my recent covid recovery survey, for which I had a very good response and I thank everyone for responding to it, some 20% of our local businesses are in hospitality. Those businesses are full of hard-working staff who always offer fantastic service and a very warm welcome. They help to make Clacton the wonderful place that it is and I thank them for that.
Throughout the pandemic, it has been incredibly important to me to ensure that those businesses had all the support that we could get for them. The Government have stepped up to the plate over the past 12 months and Tendring District Council has been brilliant at delivering the new funding, alongside its own discretionary schemes. I know that the business rates holiday, the VAT cut extension and the new business loans have particularly benefited, and will continue to benefit, our hospitality businesses. The furlough and the self-employment income support schemes have also helped many individuals. These have been positive interventions and I have no doubt that they will continue until some form of normality is resumed.
Thankfully, with the success of the vaccine roll-out, it looks like we might be back to normality at the end of lockdown. Now we need to ensure that our hospitality businesses are ready to take advantage of the new opportunities that I am sure will come. I think that we will have a massive influx of domestic visitors to the Clacton constituency this year. Our local destinations are already reporting a surge in demand for this summer as staycations are, unsurprisingly, proving popular again. Clacton’s beaches are, I think, the closest to London and the best. No hospitality business can afford to miss out on the opportunities that this influx will present, which is why the new restart grants will be so crucial. They will help our hospitality businesses to open safely—and safety is a key word. Although I welcome this potential influx, I ask that people act responsibly. If tourism businesses spend the money and open safely, people must respect that and act accordingly.
Speaking of support schemes, it is important that the Government’s work to help our arts, culture and sports institutions is recognised. We now have an additional £700 million to help these attractions as they reopen. One last word: please, please, we must get that beer differential to support on-sales, otherwise we might lose pubs again.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on her excellent speech introducing this important matter, which affects all our constituencies and our economy.
I think we are all looking forward to the unlocking of hospitality. Personally, I am looking forward to attending a three times postponed Van the Man concert at the Europa Hotel in Belfast in June, and then—the following weekend—attending the wedding of my best friend Stuart and his beloved Rachel; that’s me getting invited to it now, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As many Members have already mentioned, the wedding industry has been under immense pressure and it is important that it is supported by the Government in a very practical way. The hospitality sector is a key economic driver across the entirety of the UK. Indeed, my constituency regularly attracts over 1 million out-of-state visitors to the Giant’s Causeway and the North Antrim coast annually. That is a significant driver for our economy. Hotels from Ballycastle to Ballymena, restaurants and all sorts of other facilities are a key part of that employment cycle, and they all need support. Hospitality is Northern Ireland’s fourth largest private sector employer. It has a £2 billion turnover and purchases a third of all Northern Ireland’s agrifood productivity, so it is essential in driving the cycle of our economy. Two thirds of our entire tourism spend comes from hospitality. In the past 12 months, 70 million drinks and 60 million meals have gone unserved as a result of the lockdown. Debts of over £1 million a day are stacking up; £1.4 billion is the loss so far—and counting—to the income of those businesses.
We need four things. First, we urgently need a fixed date for the opening of our sector. We do not have one at all in Northern Ireland, and that needs to be flagged up immediately. I understand that Scotland and England at least have a date. Secondly, we need flexibility on furlough. Thirdly, debt is a massive issue; the Government must back a loan scheme that allows for the consolidation of the debts accrued and a flexible payback system. Fourthly, local government needs flexibility over how it spends money. Tourism Northern Ireland actually handed back to Westminster £5 million in the last few months because we do not have the flexibility to reallocate that money to the areas for which the bid was originally made. The Secretary of State is prepared to put his nose into all sorts of matters in Northern Ireland. Put your nose into that matter, Minister, and fix that. Let us have the flexibility over those moneys and let us fix this sector.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
This pandemic has posed challenges for all of us and for every business, not least the hospitality sector. This very important but beleaguered industry—the third largest employer across the UK—will take some time to recover from this health pandemic. Parts of the industry are on the verge of collapse and it was a mistake for the UK Government not to provide the kind of sector-specific support that it so desperately needed. The VAT cut is welcome, but the industry faces a cliff-edge in September, which could prove a death-knell to those barely hanging on. The importance of extending the VAT cut until at least the end of the year must not be overlooked if we want to save as many businesses and jobs in the sector as possible. Many hospitality businesses operate on a seasonal basis, and therefore may have to wait until next year before their balance sheet starts to begin to look healthy again.
Despite my repeated representations, no consideration has been given to the unique challenges facing operators of hospitality businesses in island communities—such as Arran in my constituency, which has at times during this pandemic been subject to higher restriction levels than mainland communities—which are concerned that islands may not necessarily be able to exit the pandemic at the same time as mainland communities.
The Scottish Government are doing all they can with the limited powers they have, and their year-long hospitality rates relief remains more generous than the three-month relief offered in England. Indeed, Scotland has the most generous non-domestic rates regime in the UK, but we also need business interruption loan schemes to be converted into grants, something I called for last April, in order to save businesses and jobs. The pressing need for that grows by the day. From April the hospitality sector, already on its knees, will be expected to repay these loans, however gradually, and it is clear that many businesses in the sector will be unable to do so and will only add to the debt and job crisis that we face. So I ask the Minister: extend the VAT cut until at least the end of the year. Look at what additional support can be given to our island communities, given their unique circumstances. Convert business interruption loans to grants and continue furlough for as long as restrictions remain in place. The UK Government surely understand the need to avoid business failures across the sector, as well as mass job losses. That does not need to happen, and I urge the Minister to do all he can to help us avoid that outcome.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Thank you. How we wish we could really go to Ayrshire—well, at least I do. But now we go to Cheadle, and Mary Robinson.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and welcome to Cheadle.
I am glad to thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for securing this debate and giving us the opportunity to reflect on the difficulties that hospitality has faced during the pandemic. Those difficulties have been particularly hard-felt by businesses in areas such as Greater Manchester, which were placed under local restrictions and in higher tiers during the autumn, and have suffered for longer. The Government’s unprecedented support has certainly been welcomed, with the bounce back loan scheme, the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme and the furlough scheme, which have been lifelines for many; but we must now look forward and ensure that hospitality recovers and thrives as we emerge from the pandemic.
The wedding sector in particular has faced—and still faces—unique challenges, and the end remains some way off. While weddings in non-exceptional circumstances will be allowed from Monday, only six people including the couple will be able to attend, and outdoor receptions with more than 30 guests and any indoor receptions must wait until at least 21 June. Even sporting events and concerts could get a head-start on them.
Couples have understandably been reluctant to confirm wedding dates, fearing that the 21 June date might get delayed, leading some wedding businesses to say that there is no light at the end of the tunnel. All this is causing a backlog of weddings, and a demand that will need to be accommodated. For wedding venues it is not just about getting back to normal; it is about going faster than normal, so that couples do not have to wait years for their big day.
One possible solution I would like to put forward is for more early weekday weddings. We know that Mondays to Wednesdays are traditionally less popular days to tie the knot, so, just like with the Eat Out to Help Out scheme, could the Government consider support to encourage early weekday weddings?
It is vital that we help this unique part of the hospitality sector recover from the pandemic because it serves such an important social purpose. Weddings bring together families and communities that for the last year have only been able to see each other and gather online; and the marriages they celebrate are the foundation of our families and our society. That is also why it is so important that when weddings come back, they come back for good. Large gatherings would be the first casualties of any resurgence in covid cases, so it is vital for wedding venues that we get this virus firmly under control. But I am confident that we will do so, and secure the future of our wedding venues. We must give hospitality and the wedding sector the support and certainty that it needs to restart and thrive.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Oh, I am sorry. We don’t go anywhere. Grahame Morris is here.
Grahame Morris
There is no need to apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Castle Eden Wood has come to the Commons. Thank you very much for calling me in this debate. I would also like to congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on promoting and securing the debate.
First, I want to reference my union. I urge the Minister to look at Unite the union’s fair hospitality charter and 10-point plan. The plan has been devised by people who work in the industry and it has a lot of merit.
I believe the Government should show some contrition in respect of the hospitality sector. Pre-covid, the hospitality and tourism sector employed about 3 million people, or about 8% of the UK workforce. Delays to the extension of the job retention scheme and uncertainty about that extension have led to redundancies and the termination of casual contracts. Lay-offs have resulted in the sharpest impact on jobs of any sector, with as many as 650,000 job losses this year.
Pubs and clubs very dear to my heart in my constituency spent many thousands of pounds at the beginning of the pandemic to be covid-compliant. I found myself agreeing with many Members, including the hon. Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms). These establishments were inspected and monitored. They addressed any covid safety shortcomings immediately, because any that failed to comply were closed by the local authority. I want to place on record my thanks to those businesses, which could have traded and employed people, for doing all they could to cut covid transmissions.
In my view, those businesses have been let down by the Government. Three national lockdowns have crippled the hospitality industry. Economic output in the sector was down 90% in April 2020, compared to February the previous year. I support the proposed extension of the VAT reduction beyond September to allow the sector to recover. When businesses are fighting for survival, they need a Government who are going to support them.
I want to say a few words about the small brewing industry, which is under threat from Government policy. In my constituency, the Castle Eden brewery is not only suffering from lack of demand and a lack of grant support, its business has been put at risk by the Government’s proposed changes to small brewers relief. There is a simple solution: retain the relief at 5,000 hectolitres and stop the proposed cut to 2,100 hectolitres. It would be a scandal if small brewers survive covid only to be put out of business by ill-conceived reforms to the small brewers relief.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for securing this debate.
The hospitality industry is the blood in the veins of our communities. It delivers so many things that make life worth living. It supplies the enjoyable days and occasions that, even before the pandemic, we all look back on fondly. Hospitality is not just about the special occasions; it is about the occasions we all treasure so much when they are taken away. It is the opportunity to have a coffee and a cake with an old friend. It is the opportunity to have a couple of pints while the world is put right. And yes, of course, it is about the weddings and the big birthdays. All have been stripped from us over the last year and it is imperative for the wellbeing of all that they are able to return as restrictions lift.
The hospitality industry has been impacted massively by the lack of celebrations, whether we are looking at a five-star hotel such as Rockliffe Hall, somewhere associated to a country park such as Hardwick Hall, or a pub with rooms such as the County in Aycliffe village. It is also pubs such as the Royal Telegraph, also in Aycliffe village, and small brewers such as Alan Hogg at the Surtees Arms in Ferryhill. It is about the food chains that enable them to operate and the multitude of staff who spend their working hours giving exceptional service.
The actions taken to frustrate the pandemic could not have been more focused on this industry if they tried. The Chancellor did his best to afford some respite to parts of the industry in the summer and his initiatives in the Budget have been helpful, but there is so much more of this industry’s core that is on life support and at risk of being terminated. Please can we consider urgently removing the ban on takeaway sales of alcohol from licensed premises in the lockdown? So many of our communities rely on the local pub for so much more than being somewhere to go for a pint. They are a critical part of the social infrastructure we need. They were already under threat before covid-19, but now the risk is critical. The all-party parliamentary group for “left behind” neighbourhoods, which I co-chair, has clearly seen how vital social infrastructure is for communities to thrive. It has therefore promoted the concept of an automatic assumption of “asset of community value” status for the last pub in the village, which would recognise the centrality of pubs and clubs to village life.
I would encourage another look at extending the 5% VAT rate to alcohol sales on licensed premises, as well as an extension in time. Also, the variable duty proposals led by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) have attracted 79 Conservative colleagues in a letter already. I also ask for consideration of sectoral support for the hospitality industry, with an extension of both furlough and business support grants beyond September, as many will have only just opened their doors in June.
I noticed today that Durham County Council has announced further support from discretionary funds for hospitality businesses and the associated supply chains. I welcome that, and hope that we can all grasp the opportunities available to support those businesses, while co-ordinating the efforts in supporting our high streets. Whether it is pubs, hotels, coach companies, brewers, wedding suppliers or the supply chains that sit behind them, their survival is critical to us feeling the benefit of lockdown lifting, and giving our communities back the precious times they have missed. We need to go above and beyond for them to give them the opportunity to give us our good times back.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]
The plan for a pint in our local or a meal in our favourite restaurant has been one of the simple ideas that has kept many of us going through the pandemic. These businesses are at the heart of many communities, acting as social hubs and boosting the local economy. Esh Winning needs the Stag’s Head; Brandon, the Brawn’s Den; and what Durham student experience is compete without a pre-lecture trip to Flat White? We cannot forget that when this cruel Government refused to feed our most vulnerable children during the school holidays, it was businesses such as the Drunken Duck in Durham that stepped up. In May, it was the Capital restaurant that delivered more than 100 free meals to our frontline NHS staff at University Hospital of North Durham.
That is why the Chancellor’s limited support for hospitality in the Budget was so disappointing. Yes, there were good elements to it, but the hospitality sector is facing incredible uncertainty, and the Budget fell well short of the recovery plan needed for the years ahead. Hospitality needs sector-specific support from Government that protects businesses and workers, such as an extended job retention scheme that ensures that no worker falls below the minimum wage, and is contingent upon greater rights for workers. That means guaranteed hours, utilising job sharing, and an end to fire-and-rehire tactics.
On top of that, over the last year businesses have taken on massive amounts of debt in order to stay afloat, and many now face a cashflow crisis. The Chancellor desperately needs to listen to Labour and introduce measures that will alleviate that pressure. Finally, the Government must recognise that 5,500 pubs and bars in the UK have closed since 2010. I urge the Government to help to address that by creating a hospitality commission that can identify the needs of the sector while helping to move it away from its reliance on low-paid, insecure work.
The hospitality sector provides many jobs to Durham, and attracts students to our university and tourists from across the world. I know that my respect for hospitality workers and businesses is shared by Members from all parties, so surely there is the collective will in this House to deliver a recovery strategy that secures the future of businesses while protecting the jobs and rights of workers. These businesses are the lifeblood of our communities. We simply have to ensure that they are still here not just come June, but next year and the year after that.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It has been an incredibly tough year for hospitality. Many businesses have faced the biggest economic decline of all the sectors in the economy, and workers have faced problems with being furloughed, reduced hours and job losses. I give credit to Hull City Council for the support that it has given to more than 5,000 local businesses, despite missing out on the Government’s high street fund, which only goes to prove that if people want help and support, it is Labour they need to turn to.
The situation was tough before the pandemic, but it has got worse, although we have had some cultural renewal and some good news. For example, the development of Humber St, the award-winning Deep and the maritime history project are all bringing people into the city centre to spend their money, and I do hope that this desire to staycation will continue that. I am particularly delighted that we have been able to save the Polar Bear and the Welly, which are two fantastic live music venues in my constituency.
The move online has only been accelerated by the pandemic, and there are a number of actions I would really like the Government to take. It is simply not fair that five US tech firms have not paid more than £1.3 billion in lost corporation tax, while at the same time our high streets are still desperately waiting for the business rates revaluation that the Government promised such a long time ago. If we want to give businesses the chance to recover and get footfall back in the city centre and people spending money, we need to look at extending support past June, because they simply will not be immediately viable.
We need to address the cash crisis. The rates and the rent make up over 30% of hospitality’s expenses, and 53% of accommodation and food businesses have said that they have less than three months of cash reserves left, which is incredibly concerning. I hope that the Government will put aside party politics and look seriously at Labour’s plan for debt recovery, and support businesses having to pay back the coronavirus business interruption loans or the bounce back loans only when they actually start to make money and can afford to do so. Again, they should look at our plans for a high street recovery fund, and reuse the money the supermarkets have not needed, since they have made so much during the pandemic, and give it to the small businesses that need the support. Of course, I always think that more can be done to support our pubs, because we will all need a drink after this pandemic.
I would also like to ask the Minister to look at the pledges from Unite the union, but because of time, I will instead write to the Minister and outline those, but they include allowing workers to keep all their tips and action against sexual harassment at work. I want to conclude by saying to the Minister, quite simply: he needs to put money back in people’s pockets; if they do not have money, none of this counts because they will not be able to spend anything.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
I first congratulate my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), on securing such a vital debate. I declare an interest in that my husband works for a logistics company and deals directly with the hospitality sector in his role.
Our hospitality industry is incredibly important to local communities both socially and economically. Some 3,000 people in Loughborough constituency alone are employed in the hospitality sector, offering everything from the ability to rent a table cloth for an event to arranging worldwide conferences for major businesses, as well as providing a scrumptious meal and a pint of local real ale by an open fire or indeed at a Michelin-starred restaurant, or a piece of cake and a coffee and a chance to meet friends in town. I would like to take this opportunity to thank every single hospitality business for all they have done over the past year to adapt to very difficult circumstances and particularly to protect jobs.
I would also like to thank the Government for the part they have played in this, having rolled out the financial support measures. In addition, I am pleased that the Government recently published their road map for reopening, which I know has provided much-needed certainty to many businesses and individuals in my constituency, as well as the emphasis the Prime Minister has placed on not reimposing restrictions once they have been lifted.
Working with Loughborough businesses over the last year, the most frequently asked question as we come out of these restrictions is, “Please can we come out with certainty?” I believe we are on our way to achieving this. What we all must realise is that we are the people who can make that succeed or fail. We must as a whole nation stick to the rules on social distancing, wearing masks and washing our hands, even when we are vaccinated, so that we can help control the virus.
For many months now, I have been advocating the use of testing to allow occasions such as weddings, rugby matches, conferences and other large events to restart. I would like to reiterate this point to the Minister, because the events industry overlaps considerably with hospitality services and provides a vital source of income for many hospitality businesses in my constituency. I would therefore welcome an update from my hon. Friend on the Government’s plans to achieve this.
There is a famous saying in the hospitality sector, which is that customers may forget what you have said but they will never forget how you made them feel. Well, hospitality sector—get ready! We have forgotten what you said a year ago, but I think everyone in this Chamber remembers how they felt the last time they were able to do the simplest thing, like meet a friend for lunch or go for a drink. The whole country is waiting for that great British hospitality to start up again: welcome back!
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]
It is clear from contributions from Members across the House that the hospitality industry across the country really is on its knees. In my own constituency of Pontypridd, we have some fantastic hospitality venues and businesses. There is not time to name them all, but I want to give a shout-out to a few, including Alfred’s and the Bunch of Grapes in Pontypridd, the Windsor in Pontyclun, the Rhondda Bowl in Tonyrefail, the brilliant and delicious Glamorgan Brewery in Llantrisant and, of course, our Savoy Theatre and the Muni Arts Centre. Those are just a few examples of the venues and business that have been hugely impacted over the last year and, sadly, a year on, we can all see for ourselves that our hotels, pubs, restaurants and entertainment venues across the country are struggling.
Only yesterday I had the privilege of visiting the Miskin Manor Hotel, a spectacular wedding venue in my constituency, to plant a tree as part of its memorial to the lives lost at the hands of coronavirus. The team at Miskin Manor have, like so many others, relied on the furlough scheme, and they have some fantastic plans to kick-start trade again when lockdown restrictions ease here in Wales, yet for so many others, the lack of future planning from this Government’s financial support packages has caused long-term damage that may be impossible for businesses to recover from.
The Chancellor has repeatedly taken a stop-start approach to economic support, which has ultimately failed the hospitality industry. These last-minute actions have harmed the high street and caused businesses and workers distress at their inability to plan for the future. It cannot and should not be this way. The sad reality is that it could have been different if the UK Government had simply made a more serious response to coronavirus early on, and while hindsight is of course a wonderful thing, I cannot help but be extremely frustrated at the sheer lack of planning. It is clear that the support schemes that were put in place for an expected three-month crisis are now no longer fit for purpose 12 to 18 months on.
The Government claim that they are committed to levelling up and that they want to boost the economy and protect jobs. Well, it is going to take a lot more than soundbites from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to fix the situation in Pontypridd, let alone in the rest of the country. The reality is that they have utterly failed a generation, and I fear that our young people will sadly be paying the price of the Government’s mistakes for many years to come. There needs to be an acknowledgement that businesses in the hospitality sector, which clearly employ young people, have an extremely difficult few months ahead as the economy reopens.
In the Budget, the Government had the opportunity to bring forward a plan to help businesses through the crisis and beyond, including debt restructuring and a jobs guarantee for the young, yet once again we saw little in the way of long-term future planning. If the Government are serious about businesses, they must include a commitment to supporting our high streets too. In Wales, I am proud that the Welsh Labour Government have understood the importance of supporting businesses big and small, right from the beginning. It is vital that the UK Government understand that the devastation caused by the pandemic is not going anywhere, and that businesses in the hospitality sector will need ongoing support, likely for many years to come. I urge the Minister to take these cries for help seriously and to work with colleagues across Government Departments to ensure that forward planning for future generations is consistently covered in the Government’s ongoing response to the pandemic.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing this important debate. Hospitality is the cornerstone of the economy in my constituency. Before 2020, the island hosted over 1 million overnight visitors each year and tourism brought in over £300 million in revenue. Almost a fifth of the island’s population are directly employed in the tourist industry and 12% of our VAT-registered businesses are in the hospitality trade. Of course, this does not take account of smaller businesses, or of the local supply chain that is dependent on those businesses. So when I say that covid-19 is having a significant impact on the economy of Ynys Môn, it is no exaggeration.
The first national lockdown in March last year came just at the start of our tourist season. Suddenly plans were thrown in the air, with bookings cancelled and refunds demanded. My inbox exploded with messages from deeply troubled small business owners. Many people on the island had sunk everything they had into businesses that now seem about to crumble into nothing. When the Chancellor brought out his first phase of support, it was a welcome beacon of hope for many. Of course, it was not a cure-all for everyone. It did not answer all the problems, but it gave hope that someone had a grip on what was needed to help. Through initiatives such as furlough, 100% business rates relief, small business grants and the VAT cut for hospitality, businesses such as Coffee Cups and Catch 22 were given the support that they so desperately needed.
When the summer came and those businesses could reopen, the Chancellor stepped in again, with eat out to help out. Ynys Môn saw 104 restaurants take part, with 74,000 meals claimed for, totalling nearly half a million pounds. Our hospitality businesses did us proud over the summer. Despite early concerns that tourism might lead to increased covid rates, our food and accommodation businesses complied with social distancing, personal protective equipment and sanitising measures, and our island’s figures stayed low.
We have been through a long winter, locked down by the Welsh Government’s firebreak over the half-term break in October, and again over the Christmas break. Many restaurants developed a new sideline in takeaway meals. I was delighted to run a competition last month to find our island’s favourite takeaway. I received hundreds of entries, with many people applauding the contribution that our restaurants and takeaways have made to our emotional wellbeing, if not always to our waistlines. The winner, the Pilot House Cafe in Penmon, is a great example of a business that has adapted to its circumstances over the past few months and made the most of what opportunity it could.
As vaccinations roll out, those businesses that have weathered the storm across the island, such as the Valley Hotel, the White Eagle, the Oyster Catcher and Dylan’s, are earnestly hoping that we can reopen soon, not only for our tourists but for our locals, who, like everyone else across the UK, are just desperate to enjoy a meal out and a drink with their friends.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The last year has been difficult for us all, with every aspect of our lives and livelihoods impacted by covid, but the hospitality sector has perhaps faced more challenges than most. Apart from a few months over the summer, many pubs and clubs have not been able to trade at all, and when they have been able to open, they have faced such onerous trading conditions that, if they have chosen to trade, they have often done so at a loss.
I understand, of course, why restrictions were needed on how people interacted in pubs, but the way we ended up, in the space of a few weeks last September, lurching from debates about whether Scotch eggs were substantial meals to whether 10 pm closures did more harm than good shows just how confused the response was, with rapid, almost weekly changes to how pubs were meant to operate. That constant chopping and changing only added to the financial burden that pubs face. What about the farce of Test and Trace check-ins for hospitality venues? They were used 100 million times but resulted in only 284 alerts. The Government should make sure that these things work properly if they are going to insist on them in the future.
When I look at some of the pubs in my locality that have not opened their doors for a year, I worry that they may never do so again. We know that in the last decade, a pub has closed once every 14 hours. My concern is that that shocking figure may end up being dwarfed once we see the true impact of covid on the sector. We must look at the sector as a whole—not just the bit we see as customers, but those in the supply chain. The brewers, the cleaners, those who supply the vending machines and the pool tables—all those businesses rely on a thriving hospitality sector to survive, and the importance of their making it beyond the next three months must be clear.
It is welcome that we now have a clear road map for the opening of venues, which is necessary to give sectors confidence. The last thing they need—the last thing we all need—is the stop-start, boom-and-bust approach that we saw last year, when where a business was based and what it provided dictated whether it could open at all, almost on a day-to-day basis.
Even when pubs reopen on 12 April, we need to recognise that that does not mean all pubs will be able to reopen. Those that do not have outdoor facilities will still be shut, and, frankly, we cannot be confident that the great British summer will come early enough to encourage people to drink outside in April. That gap has to be bridged. We must also remember that, when we hopefully get to full reopening in May, the road map requires table service only to be in operation. With social distancing, that means there will be, by definition, a limit on the number of customers a pub can have, and that limit is likely to be well below the capacity it used to enjoy. Again, that is a gap that has to be bridged, and many Members have already spoken today about how we can do that.
We all hope that this lockdown is the last, but I hope it has been made clear to the Minister today that, even if that is the case, there will still be challenges to the sector for many months to come. I will do my best personally to support the hospitality sector—within reasonable limits, of course—but I cannot do it on my own, and the sector cannot do it without Government support until the pandemic is completely over.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
There is no need to dream of going to Ayrshire, Madam Deputy Speaker; you know you are welcome to prop up the outside bars and pubs of Worthing and Shoreham at any time, as I know you like doing so much.
It is very difficult in three minutes to comment on what, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) said—I congratulate her on securing this debate—is such a big industry. It is a big industry, a very large revenue earner, a large taxpayer and a large employer. The fact that, in 2020, total revenues fell by some 54%, with potentially 600,000 jobs at stake, is very worrying. Undoubtedly, the many generous measures from the Chancellor have been a lifeline for many businesses and jobs, enabling them to survive the lockdown and hopefully to open up shortly. However, coastal communities such as mine are disproportionately reliant on the hospitality industry, and those businesses disproportionately employ young people, so there is a double whammy for already deprived coastal community areas and the young people in them.
Of course, this is not just about hospitality venues. There has been a significant impact on the suppliers and events service industries, as many hon. Members have said. I am talking about everything from the people making the pies and sausage rolls for football matches, who do not have a premises that they may have been able to get various grants for, to the wedding dressmakers—why on earth are we still limiting wedding receptions outside to 15 people, which is ridiculous?—to DJs, lighting suppliers and the kennels and catteries who do not have any customers because they are all stuck at home with their pets. It is vital that we do not delay any further. The industry needs certainty. The stop-start closures that many people have mentioned have been highly damaging. We have heard that 60% of pubs may not reopen on 12 April, and it is really frustrating that pubs cannot not be open, even outside, even with all the social-distancing measures that they have put in place, for the Easter bank holiday weekend.
Hotels have been particularly hard hit. Many of them cannot comply as easily with the regulation as self-catering and Airbnb accommodation. Many restaurants and pubs have not been able to benefit from carrying on their takeaway trade, and historic venues have ongoing maintenance costs for which they need to raise money. Although we will benefit from domestic tourism this year because of travel restraints, we are not going to benefit properly from unvaccinated Europeans coming in, which is a very lucrative part of the tourism industry.
We need to extend some of the generous measures. We need the 5% VAT rate to become permanent. The 20% rate does not sit easily with continental hospitality industries. We need to look again at the rate multiplier on business rates—the Chancellor needs to look at adjusting it downwards. Home drinking has brought in an £800 million windfall. The Chancellor has the leeway and capacity to be even more generous to the hospitality industry through this really important period. I hope he is listening—cheers to that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
I agree with what many speakers have said about hospitality. While this is a debate about hospitality, I see it very much in my constituency as a very interconnected ecosystem, because without live events and shopping in the city centre, people are not going to come in to spend money in the hospitality sector. There is no pre-theatre meal if people are not going to the theatre, and there will not be the drinks afterwards and the taxi home. Without people coming in for weddings, for example, there are fewer hotel stays and, without the huge conferences and events that Glasgow hosts, the hotel sector is struggling massively.
The wedding sector is huge, particularly in the Asian community in Glasgow. If people have not had the pleasure of attending an Asian wedding in Glasgow, perhaps they have watched the show, “Getting Hitched Asian Style”, on BBC Scotland, and I would certainly recommend it. These are incredibly glamorous and expensive events to put on, and I really feel for Saffron Events and others like it that have tried to diversify in lockdown but which are not able to put on the tremendously elaborate weddings that they usually would. I very much hope that they will be back doing what they love very soon.
It has been incredibly difficult for many of the venues in the city centre that rely on the passing trade of the SSE Hydro. All the restaurants in Finnieston had been booming since the Hydro came to town, and without that, it is much more of a struggle, even when the sector does diversify. Without venues operating such as the Barrowlands, King Tut’s, the King’s theatre, the Pavilion theatre, and all the other theatres and venues within the city centre, the other things that we enjoy very much in our city become much more difficult to sustain.
I urge the Government very much to take on board the errors that they made over the past year. They locked down too late and unlocked too early. The furlough dithering towards the autumn last year cost jobs in the sector—jobs that young people relied on and now cannot get. I ask the Government to look very carefully at extending the 5% VAT reduction for the rest of the year at the very least, as people have not benefited from that, because nobody has been able to go out to restaurants, or to spend money at events, which also had the 5% cut, or on their hair, beauty and at salons, which would also like to see that 5% cut extended to their sector, which again brings many people into Glasgow city centre. We are looking at a sector that has become heavily indebted and dependent on the furlough scheme, and when that goes, the Government will have to think carefully about how it is supported for the rest of the year. It has been the most difficult year for a sector that demands so much of our public joy. I feel very sorry for everybody within that sector, but it is an ecosystem and the Government need to consider it as such. No business stands alone.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend, and neighbour, the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), on securing it. She is right to point out the importance of the hospitality industry to our economy in the west country. Before the pandemic, the hospitality and tourism sector was worth more than £2.5 billion to our local economy each year. That supported more than 3,000 businesses in Devon, and created more than £200 million of spending in the industry’s supply chains. Many of our hospitality businesses have suffered over the past year, and I am grateful for the support that the Government, both local and national, have provided.
As Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I have a particularly strong interest in our food industry. During the first lockdown, we launched an inquiry into covid-19 and the food supply, as pubs, bars and restaurants shut down, and the companies and workers who supplied them found their revenue sources removed overnight. Farmers and food suppliers tried to move food originally destined for hospitality to supermarkets, but the adjustment was difficult. British dairy farmers, for example, lost more than £41 million. The Government stepped in to help the dairy sector with a hardship fund, but many other sectors supplying hospitality businesses have continued to struggle.
It is clear from our inquiries over the last year that it is not only cafés and pubs that need extra support, but also the small and medium-sized food-and-drink businesses that supply them. The Government’s support for hospitality will be only partially successful if supply chains collapse, and the same is true of the wedding industry. Large venues such as Deer Park country house in my constituency have received a good amount of support from retail, leisure and hospitality grants, as well as the new restart grants. However, it has been more difficult to target support for the florists, cakemakers, dressmakers, photographers, caterers, and musicians, who rely on the weddings and events industries for their businesses. The Government have generally gone for a “catch-all” approach, which I understand, instead of sector-specific support, but that has left some hard cases and a lot of confusion for some sectors.
There is a lot of financial support out there, and we must ensure that our constituents know about the support schemes and how to access them. That is why this debate is especially useful, as we tackle the final weeks of lockdown and look to reopen the economy. I hope that the Minister will continue to engage regularly with representatives from the hospitality sector, to ensure that businesses are aware of what specific support is available to them now and as they look to reopen. I believe that the combination of tax cuts, cash grants, and the relaxation of planning laws over the next 12 months can help the many tourism and hospitality businesses in Tiverton and Honiton to survive and thrive, and I thank the Minister for her continued support.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The hospitality industry is of enormous importance to the Northern Isles, and an integral part of our well- developed visitor economy. Hospitality, I like to think, is something that comes very naturally to us in Orkney and Shetland. Indeed, we were described by one visitor to me a couple of years ago as being “dangerously hospitable”—I know exactly what he meant.
It is worth reflecting that this time last year, those in the visitor economy and hospitality industry were saying that local businesses feared that this situation would last for three winters. We would come out of six quiet months, and instead of the six good months that would normally be expected, businesses would be quiet, then there would again be the six quiet months of the winter. That is where we now are, except that this time last year, we believed, and indeed hoped, that we would be coming out of this. It is now clear that we are in fact some distance from being out of it. It is clear from the limited opening that we had in summer last year, that when it arrives, recovery will not come at a uniform pace. For self-catering businesses in Orkney and Shetland, business returned easily, but for the bed and breakfasts and hotels, it was a much more difficult path back to recovery.
It is also the case that in communities such as mine—I am sure this is true of rural communities across the whole country—the hospitality industry and the visitor economy are integrated with just about every other sector in our local economies. The craft industries, such as knitwear and jewellery manufacturers, depend on it. We have also seen the depression of hospitality across the whole of the United Kingdom; in Orkney and Shetland, that means that the premium producers of beef and lamb and the fish and shellfish producers are also suffering, because the restaurants are not open to take their products.
It feels like we have all had a year on a life support machine, as far as the visitor economy is concerned. Even as we emerge from that, it is still going to be necessary for some of the intensive care to continue. For the Government, that means that we cannot have immediate withdrawal of things like the furlough scheme: they will have to look at a tapering-off of that support, and it will have to be looked at sector by sector, and possibly even region by region. As others have said, the reduction of value-added tax for the hospitality industry has been of massive importance, and indeed there is a strong case, which many of us have made over many years, for it to become permanent. I do hope that that is something that the Treasury will now consider.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on securing this debate. I associate myself with the remarks made a few moments ago by my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) regarding the wedding sector and the wider events sector, but I want to focus my three minutes on pubs and small breweries, particularly in rural communities. A recent survey by the Countryside Alliance revealed the harsh reality that our pub trade faces. Only 34% of publicans who replied to that survey said they can hold out if they are shut until the summer, and we know from British Beer and Pub Association research that 60% of all pubs in the UK will remain closed after 12 April, even under the current road map. Losing pubs would be devastating and irreversible.
I welcome the Chancellor’s continued support in the form of additional grants, the extension to the job retention scheme, the 5% VAT rate, and the business rates holiday. However, there are some gaps that need to be addressed. I am backing the Countryside Alliance’s #UnlockInn campaign, particularly calling for all pubs to be permitted to serve takeaway alcohol right away. The current situation is perverse, given that supermarkets can continue to sell alcohol. Likewise, indoors trade should be permitted from 12 April. Ever since my election, I have been delighted to support the Long Live the Local campaign, calling for a beer tax cut to support our local pubs. I hope the ongoing alcohol duty review will conclude that a cut to beer duty will support our brewers and pubs and level the playing field. Likewise, the proposal from the Campaign for Real Ale for a draught-beer duty cut would further help level that playing field: modelling shows that just a 5% duty cut for draught beer could create 1,000 jobs in the on-trade.
Coupled with that is the need to reverse the proposed changes to small breweries relief. Some 2 million fewer pints of craft beer were brewed by small breweries last year, and two small breweries a week closed their doors for good last summer. There are four fantastic independent breweries in my constituency: Chiltern, XT, Vale and Blackpit. These businesses are set to be hard pressed by the proposed changes. A small brewery may have to pay up to £44,000 extra tax per year, putting jobs and their recovery at risk, and those changes will be introduced next January, giving businesses hit by covid little time to prepare. What is the point in helping the hospitality trade if there are not vibrant, diverse and local beers on offer when the economy reopens? Finally, it is absolutely crucial that the dates in the road map are kept to, or brought forward. That way, we can give our hospitality sector the best chance of recovery, and get the pints pouring once more.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
For about half of the past 12 months, the brilliant hospitality industry in North East Fife has been forced to close its doors. Obviously that has had a profound impact, from the Ship Inn in Elie, to Kingsbarns Distillery, to our many fantastic and historic golf clubs, to wedding venues such as Kinkell Byre, to street food like the Cheesy Toast Shack in St Andrews. There has been support, for which I am grateful, but I have spent much of the past year arguing for the people and businesses who either missed out on support or for whom the support received has been inadequate. My casework team have done a brilliant job in navigating through the often complex support schemes of both the UK and Scottish Governments.
All being well, this will be the last time that I speak on hospitality before the businesses in North East Fife can open their doors again on 26 April. I, for one, cannot wait to finish our door-knocking sessions with an ice cream from Jannetta’s in St Andrews. But it will not all be plain sailing from that point. Social distancing requirements, limits on households and table service will be a reality for all these businesses. Even though in Scotland indoor hospitality is opening on the same day as outdoor, no alcohol can be sold indoors initially, so there is a disadvantage for premises that do not have outdoor seating.
The obstacles go further. Mainland Scotland moves back into level 3, but that will mean travel restrictions preventing anyone from entering or leaving a local authority area. When Fife was in level 3 last year, that presented a real difficulty for many hospitality businesses in the area. Indeed, I have previously spoken in this place about the Peat Inn, which is a Michelin-starred restaurant that attracts most of its business from outwith Fife—tourists who come to stay in bed-and-breakfasts and hotels. Under level 3, it was legally able to open, but business was so limited that it was forced to shut its doors again. The Scottish Government’s approach thus far has been that businesses that can legally open are not eligible for the grant support available to level 4 areas, and that has not changed in intervening months since last autumn as we now enter the spring. It was a real difficulty then and it is still a real difficulty now.
It is hard to justify that lack of support: first, because they are Government restrictions that are hampering business by preventing travel into the kingdom of Fife—as many others have said, the likelihood of seeing overseas visitors this year is fast diminishing—and secondly, because both the UK and Scottish taxpayers have now provided so much support to businesses around the country through the furlough scheme, rates relief, and the small grants administered by local authorities. The whole point of that support has been to get those businesses through what has been, in effect, three winter seasons in a row, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said. Now, thanks to the public’s hard work in following lockdown restrictions, we are in a position where we can begin to recover, so let us not take the support away too early, or all the efforts over the last year will have been wasted. Now is the time to enable our businesses not just to survive but to thrive. Let us put recovery first.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I have now spoken in a number of debates as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on pubs to highlight the existential threat to the trade from the events of the past year and to ask for clearer support for the sector. It is a shame that here I am again, repeating calls that have so far gone unanswered. For those of us who do not want to hear the last orders’ bell tolling for pubs in every single one of our constituencies, the Government must recognise what more needs to be done to sustain them until custom can properly return.
I welcomed the grants made available, including in the Budget, but many in the sector have been saying that they are insufficient. The British Institute of Innkeeping stated that
“these grants will not even cover the furlough contributions that will be needed to safeguard their teams until May, let alone June.”
The business rates holiday and VAT cut extension were also welcome, but do not make up for the losses that have accrued and will continue to accrue until pubs are able to open fully. Wet-led pubs, in particular, will continue to suffer. I am glad that they no longer need to comply with the farce of the Scotch egg test—may I say that its removal shows that it was a hollow necessity all along?—but they will not benefit from the VAT cut, which is restricted to food, soft drinks and accommodation. These problems are made even worse for pubs without beer gardens or outside space, which will still be on severely restricted capacity until at least 21 June.
Alongside our pubs, the brewers that supply them need support too. About 80% of the beer made by small producers, including the Coach House Brewing Company and Twisted Wheel Brew Company in Warrington North, and the 4Ts Brewery just over the Mersey from us, is sold in pubs. The devastating loss of trade, with pubs closed, 200 million fewer pints of craft beer brewed in comparison with 2019, and 6 million pints of beer poured down the drain this year, represents 10 years of lost growth for the sector. They desperately need compensation and support to recover.
Pubs and their suppliers deserve the support they need until they can reopen properly—a day to which we are all looking forward very much. I know that I am not alone in longing for the days of a pint or five in my local with friends and making new friends in the smoking area. As our freedom to enjoy those days comes back, we need to ensure that the sector is there in which to be able to enjoy that freedom.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I commend the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this important and topical debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said, a vibrant city centre is very much the sum of its parts: its retail, its leisure and its hospitality. On that point, I would like briefly to reflect on the terrible news from Aberdeen today that our local John Lewis store is to close. Some 265 good jobs are currently up in the air, and my heart goes out to each and every individual who is potentially impacted. I know that, across the political divide in Aberdeen, we will all unite to try to convince the organisation to take a different path—one that retains such a vital department store in the city of Aberdeen. It is probably apt to reflect on the importance of such a story in the wider context of a city centre, because we all know that when we go to city centres to enjoy what is on offer, it is not just for the pubs, the food, the cinemas or the parks; it is also for the shops. As I say, it is a collective, and we all need to be very mindful of that.
As we have heard from numerous Members, the last year has been an extremely challenging time for those in the hospitality sector. They have had to face myriad changing circumstances, be that in relation to social distancing, opening times or what they can and cannot serve. I have a great deal of sympathy for them in that regard. They have had to put up with an incredibly difficult set of circumstances, and I know that they have diligently tried to adhere to everything that has been put in front of them. I sincerely hope that in the not- too-distant future, we can all get back to enjoying ourselves in establishments across Scotland and the UK.
For my own part, I cannot wait to get back into BrewDog and down to the Cove Bay Hotel for some food or, indeed, to North East Fife, because I have a couple of vouchers for some places in St Andrews that I am desperate to use. I was given them at Christmas in the expectation that I would be there before now. It was nice to hear the remarks from the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) about what her constituency has to offer; it is a wonderful part of the world.
We are all keen to get back out there and enjoy ourselves, because having that social contact with people in environments that we all love and enjoy is the very essence of our being. That is to come, but in the meantime, we need to reflect on the challenges that will still be there for the hospitality sector. When things open up, it will not simply be a case of “back to normal”. First, those in the sector will have to deal with the fact that restrictions are still in place, but they will also have to deal with the fact that consumer confidence is shattered. People are going to be a little bit anxious about doing what they previously did. It is incumbent on the UK Government to take cognisance of that fact, in particular in relation to VAT. The 5% cap for the hospitality sector has been a good move, but we need to see that extended until the end of the year, at least to allow businesses the certainty that they need.
That certainty is important. It was important last autumn, when businesses in Scotland tried to close due to public health reasons, and we asked the UK Government repeatedly to extend the furlough scheme. They delayed and delayed, and only at the last minute they decided to extend it on the basis of the situation in south-east England. We cannot allow that to happen again. Scotland does not have the powers that it should have in that regard. It is of much frustration to me, as I am sure the Minister will be aware, that we cannot borrow to try to fill the gap caused by the shortfalls in the UK Government’s schemes.
Of course, where we can take action, we have taken action. Scotland’s Finance Secretary delivered our Budget recently, and we went further than the UK Government on rates relief. I have heard today the frustration of several Members about business rates and the fact that in England there will be a taper of the support over the year. That is not the case in Scotland, where there will be 100% rates relief throughout the coming financial year. We are trying to provide the certainty that we can to hospitality businesses; it is time for the UK Government to step up and do likewise.
I am conscious of the time, so I will finish where I started, with some local narrative. Towards the end of last year, there was a lot of difficultly in the hospitality situation in Aberdeen and some challenges with adherence to social distancing and the like, but the hospitality sector in our city got together and created Aberdeen Hospitality Together. That re-instilled the confidence that we all needed. Dutifully led by Stuart McPhee from Siberia Bar & Hotel, people across a whole host of venues managed to put in place a format that people could believe in and trust. As we move out of lockdown in the coming weeks and months, that trust is going to be so vital. I look forward, as indeed does everyone else in the Chamber, to getting back into a pub and drinking far too many beers.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing this debate.
In the interests of fairness, I wish to put on record the very vibrant, trendy fashionable nature of Manchester city centre, with its wide hospitality, cultural and night-time economy. I think I have in my constituency the most pubs and bars out of any Member in this House. I say that just in the interests of fairness, of course. I also put on record my admiration for and pride in our hospitality sector and supply chain and the difficult role that it has played in keeping us all safe this year.
The Government have a moral duty, as well as an economic imperative, to ensure that as many shuttered businesses as possible are able to reopen viably. We supported lockdown and the “whatever it takes” mantra, but we have seen economic support increasingly diverge from public health measures. This is wrong. There is also a huge economic cost in seeing successful businesses going to the wall through no fault of their own, with lost taxes, scarring unemployment and lower growth. In the end, we all pay more for not supporting businesses than we do for doing so.
The initial package of schemes—furlough, grants, loans, deferrals and so on—was welcome, but as time has gone on it has become increasingly clear that those schemes were okay for three months but not designed for the 12 to 18 months of lockdowns and lost trade that we have seen. The gaps at the start have become ever larger, and the debts, overheads and deferrals have mounted, leaving the sectors that are most in distress, such as hospitality, on the brink, facing huge uncertainty on rocky foundations.
It is clear from the Office for Budget Responsibility figures published with the Budget that there is a lack of ambition about the longer-term recovery, with low growth now seemingly accepted by the Government. The Chancellor is betting the farm on consumer spending doing all the heavy lifting. He is taking a big gamble that saving spending alone will drive the recovery. There are only so many haircuts and meals out that people can have in a short space of time, and for many, cuts to family budgets will take money out of local economies anyway. It is as if the Government cannot wait to get off the pitch. Having done the bare minimum to provide a safety net, the aftermath is not of their concern. This is the wrong choice for our economy.
The announcements in the Budget do not mean that the job is done. We saw that in the reaction to the Chancellor’s photo opportunity with a certain celebrity chef, which became his very own kitchen nightmare. There is still huge uncertainty. There is still a looming bombshell facing firms. There are still many hospitality businesses on the brink of going bust, and big gaps in the support for those in the supply chain and those who have been excluded from the start are getting bigger.
Let us take the gaps in support. Businesses could have just about survived them for three months, but are totally desperate after a year and counting. The wedding sector; the events industry; the night-time economy, including taxi drivers and security staff; supply-chain businesses; freelancers; and company directors, including festival organisers and small traders—all have been abandoned. The additional restrictions grant has been too little, too late, caught up in red tape with complicated guidance creating a postcode lottery.
Debt is another issue that is pushing businesses to the edge and threatening the recovery. Companies have taken the loans, deferrals and moratoriums, but as trade slowly restarts and the debts are called in, businesses will go bust. This is an issue for the larger chains as well.
There are also many measures that Ministers have got wrong, making a bad situation worse. Business interruption insurance claims have been the bane of many businesses’ lives, with insurers failing to pay out—if a pandemic is not “business interruption”, what is? The news today that the Government are not prepared to help with insuring large events and festivals is a hammer blow to this summer’s recovery. The Chancellor’s job retention bonus, which businesses were relying on, has now been dumped. With the curfew, the substantial meal rule, and businesses open one day and closed the next, poor decisions have exacerbated the economic woes of the sector. Ministers should learn from these mistakes, but it is clear that they have not. Just yesterday, I was contacted by William Lees-Jones, a Manchester brewer, who rightly complained that there will only be a week’s notice before pubs’ outdoor opening is confirmed, with this being announced on a bank holiday. Hospitality businesses just think the Government do not get their sector.
Although the road map is welcome, it is not a road map for all, and for most is still way too uncertain to plan around: to buy stock, brew beer, bring back staff or book a wedding. The visitor economy is a big part of the hospitality ecosystem—tourism, conferences, events, sports, culture and weddings; for them, the road map still leads to a brick wall. The hospitality industry is vital to the recovery. It drove growth after the global financial crisis and, with the right help, it could do so again. As things stand, the industry will not be able to be the work-horse of job opportunities that it once was, especially for the young. We need a real plan to support hospitality to thrive, with the overhaul of business rates that is long overdue; real action on debts, with loans paid back on an income-contingent basis, as Labour proposes; a proper job support scheme to reduce unemployment and drive growth; powers and resources to reignite our towns, city centres and high streets through a hospitality and high street fightback fund; an extension of al fresco dining measures; more sector support, especially for the wet-led pubs; the freeing up of group businesses and chains from state aid rules when it comes to cash grants; and public health guidance which makes operating viable and is fair to all parts.
Hospitality businesses were the first to feel this crisis and will likely be the last out of it. Firms have seen four winters in a year, and no golden quarter. Every previously viable business that goes bust will lengthen and deepen the long tail of recovery. That is not just the Labour view, but the view of the International Monetary Fund, the Bank of England and the OECD. We have to support businesses today, tomorrow and through the recovery. The truth of the Budget was a Chancellor failing to do enough to stop insolvencies and to support long-term growth—that was the verdict of the OBR. Now, “whatever it takes” must mean just that, otherwise we will see a repeat of the mistakes of the last decade of low growth and stagnant living standards. We cannot afford to go back to business as usual.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing today’s debate. She has given me another stopping place in her constituency for us to have a drink in when we are eventually able to do so, the Bell Inn in Chittlehampton, and we will have to go to the Nartnapa Thai kitchen in Lynton to have a good meal there as well. This debate is important because the hospitality sector is so important. As we have heard, it is important for its contribution to the economy, for local high streets and communities, for the millions of local jobs that it creates, and for the health and wellbeing of us all. This debate has highlighted just how important the sector is, and I hope it will go some way to restoring public confidence and kickstarting the recovery as we see the road map to recovery.
We have heard of those local examples, including my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Griffiths) talking about Carling’s “support your local” campaign. We have heard about restaurants such as Bartellas, and about cafés such as Coffee Cups, Catch 22 and the Pilot House in Ynys Môn. We heard about Mulligans Sports Bar supporting its local area in Scunthorpe. We know that nationally the hospitality sector is a big deal, employing about 1.3 million people across 162,000 businesses, but arguably it is even more important at the local level, providing that cornerstone of our high streets, securing local jobs and opportunities for local suppliers, supporting the events that attract visitors to towns and cities up and down the country, and providing space for family and friends to come together. In short, hospitality is the lifeblood of our communities, our society and our heritage.
Since the start of the pandemic, I have worked closely with the sector to understand the issues involved so that I can best represent its interests in Government. That engagement has helped to shape the business support package and ensured that as many hospitality businesses as possible had access to some form of support. Clearly, it would not have been possible to have a separate scheme for every sector and every industry, or to compensate every company for every pound lost as a result of the pandemic. The Government support package is designed to ensure that as many businesses as possible—from the large chains to the sole traders—qualify for some level of business support, with the aim of saving as many otherwise healthy businesses and jobs as possible.
That package included job retention measures, support for the self-employed, access to grants and loans, VAT cuts, business rates relief and the moratorium on commercial rent evictions. In addition, we have provided local authorities with £2 billion of funding to support those businesses that do not qualify for the local restriction support grants and the restart grants, including breweries; freelance and mobile businesses, which take in caterers, events, hair and beauty, and wedding-related businesses; tourism businesses, including group travel and tour operators, B&Bs, and events industry suppliers. I urge local authorities to use the discretionary additional restrictions grant funding generously to support those businesses and others that have not had other forms of support. After all, they could, as we have heard, play a critical role in attracting visitors to the city and town centres, as well as to their local areas, over the summer and beyond.
Equally, local authorities should have the guidance for restart grants to help them plan ahead and get the grants out quickly, so that businesses are in the best place to reopen at step 2 of the road map. None the less, no business support package can ever match the benefits of operating in an open marketplace. While the new restart grants and the additional restrictions grants are important to the reopening and recovery of hospitality businesses, local authorities also have a part to play in helping businesses to reopen safely, by making it easy for them to maximise outside seating, tables and street stores to serve food and drinks. That will not just help hospitality businesses to reopen in a way that provides extra capacity and therefore revenue, helping them to manage down accrued debts, but provide the sector with longer-term resilience.
I encourage local authorities to make use of the welcome back fund announced on Saturday 20 March and the additional restrictions grant funding to run publicity campaigns and to prepare for events such as street markets, festivals and all those sorts of things to help support local businesses. Campaigns and safe events will be vital in encouraging the return of shoppers to our town and city centres. At the same time, we need to make sure that we embed confidence by supporting local pubs, cafés and restaurants.
The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) raised the issue of those that had missed out on support, which I have already addressed, but a number of Members mentioned small brewers and the relief fund. The Chancellor has launched a technical consultation, which closes on 4 April, and I encourage all brewers and people interested in that sector to make sure that they have their say. Beer duty has been frozen for the second year in a row, saving drinkers £7.3 billion. The Government will set out details of the next stages of the review in due course.
We also heard from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). I have been working with Colin Neill from Hospitality Ulster on the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland, and I am grateful for his feedback. I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is about time that we renewed the karaoke session that we had a few years ago in his constituency.
Finally, a number of Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), raised the issue of weddings. I value the fact that I was able to work with the weddings taskforce, which was brought together by the sector itself, involving a disparate number of businesses and voices focused on producing concentrated and collaborative work. We do need to do more to make sure that we can give them the certainty that they need as we get to step 2, and I will redouble my efforts to make sure that we can get that done.
In conclusion, the road map that the Prime Minister announced provides a gradual and cautious step-by-step—not stop-and-start—plan to reopen the economy. That, in tandem with the progress of the vaccination programme—bear in mind that at some points on Saturday, we were achieving something like 27 jabs a second—means that we are hopeful of keeping to our schedule.
Despite the progress over the last few months, we cannot pretend that the way forward is easy or that difficult choices do not lie ahead. For the sake of people across the country and for the NHS, we must remain cautious. We must remember hands, face and space. Ventilation and fresh air will also be hugely important as we seek to reopen. That is why the road map starts with outdoor opening before we come indoors. The events research programme, which is looking at how we can have covid-secure events including larger weddings, will report back in May.
We remain cautiously optimistic. I look forward to returning to the hospitality sector, as I think we all do in this House.
Selaine Saxby
This is obviously the time of the evening when we should all be going to the pub or to our much-loved bars here in the House, where I probably owe colleagues who did not get to speak today a pint. I know they would have spoken with passion in support of their hospitality businesses and whetted appetites with their tantalising take-outs.
I thank the Minister for his response. He knows that a cold beer is on the bar whenever he wants to visit North Devon; I hope that the duty on it will reflect the calls made across the Chamber today. As the self-appointed one-woman tourist board for North Devon, I invite all Members to visit when the time is right. I hope that they will then understand why I am quite so passionate about ensuring support for the sector here, across the country and particularly in North Devon. I thank everyone for taking part today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The Question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion say “Aye.” [Hon. Members: “Aye.”] I was looking for a more enthusiastic “Aye!” about pubs opening. Shall we do it again? As many as are of that opinion say “Aye!” [Hon. Members: “Aye!”] To the contrary “No”—the Ayes have it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for the hospitality industry throughout the covid-19 pandemic.
Business without Debate
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Privatisation of York Hospital’s Emergency Department
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I rise to present this petition on the privatisation of York Hospital’s emergency department on behalf of my constituents in York Central.
When staff working in York Hospital’s emergency department were informed that Vocare—a profit-making subsidiary of Totally Plc—wanted to take over the running of the minor injuries unit, they were deeply disturbed, not least as we are in the midst of a pandemic, in which the staff have gone to extraordinary lengths to serve my community. I therefore thank the 14,191 residents of York who in just three weeks signed a petition online and in person to state clearly that their minor injuries unit must stay in the NHS—an incredible response. I am glad that intense discussions have ensued and trust that our NHS will remain in public hands.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Government to recognise that the proposal to outsource work done by the Emergency Department of York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust is ill-conceived, poorly timed and against the interests of patients; to prevent this outsourcing to the private sector; and to revise these plans for York Teaching Hospital only when the Government has published its White Paper and subsequent Bill on NHS reorganisation.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of York Central,
The petitioners of York declare that they oppose all proposals to move access to some services at York Hospital’s Emergency Department (initial assessment, streaming and minor injury care) away from the NHS to a private company; further that the Royal College of Emergency Medicine clearly states that the Emergency Department should control the front door of the Emergency Department, not some third-party organisation; further that clinical governance have not considered how this reorganisation will disrupt patient pathways and clinical networks; further that the governance have not considered how this will impact the clinical supervision of staff and governance of patient care; further that they have not fully engaged with the clinical specialists working in this filed; further that this extends the privatisation of the NHS in a critical care facility and that such a move is not in the interests of patient care or clinical governance within the Emergency Department; further that we are managing a very difficult pandemic where there should be no distraction from the delivery of clinical services; and notes that the Health Secretary expects to bring forward a White Paper outlining a reorganisation of the NHS, which could have implications for access to Emergency Departments, the treatment of minor injuries and trauma and general practice.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Government to recognise that the proposal to outsource work done by the Emergency Department of York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust is ill-conceived, poorly timed and against the interests of patients; to prevent this outsourcing to the private sector; and to revise these plans for York Teaching Hospital only when the Government has published its White Paper and subsequent Bill on NHS reorganisation.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002654]
Waste Incinerators
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I extend my thanks to you and Mr Speaker for granting this urgent personal debate on waste incineration? Before I get going, let me declare to the House that my family run and operate a plastic recycling business. There is much to cover in this debate, so in the short time that I have, I want specifically to talk about the Aire valley incinerator that is due to be constructed in my constituency.
Robbie Moore
On 8 December last year, the Environment Agency made the decision to award an environmental permit for a waste incinerator to be built in Marley, right on the outskirts of Keighley. The scheme was originally awarded planning consent by our local authority, Bradford Council, back in early 2017. That decision was in spite of huge local opposition. That opposition was led for many years by the Aire Valley Against Incineration campaign team, which is an excellent group. I must at this early stage in the debate give particular credit and extend my personal thanks to Simon Shimbles and Ian Hammond, who are part of the campaign team and have been working closely with me throughout the many conversations I have had, so that we can collectively raise our concerns. Their passion, dedication and acute attention to detail has shone throughout all our discussions.
This is a campaign team that has seen, over the last six years or so, its following and the involvement from local residents grow to over 6,000 people. The team has worked tirelessly over many years. In my view, since forming, they have represented the views of the many residents in Riddlesden, East Morton, Long Lee, Thwaites Brow, Keighley and our wider community far better on this subject than our local district council.
As I have indicated, I stand here in the full knowledge that the green light has been granted for the Aire valley incinerator to operate, so I want to pick up on some of the huge concerns that I and many others still have, and address some of the flawed decision making and disastrous decisions that have been adopted throughout the planning application and the environmental permit stages.
This is an incinerator that is to be built at the bottom of a valley in close proximity to schools, residential care homes, playing fields, people’s homes—spaces where children grow up and play. Yet despite that, and a huge number of other factors which I will go into, both the Environment Agency and Bradford Council, as the local planning authority, have deemed the construction and operation of the incinerator to be suitable and fit for our environment.
This has been a long-running issue. The environmental permit for the incinerator was granted last December, but the campaign against the project began way back in 2013. In October of that year, the very first planning application for the incinerator was made to Bradford Council. Four years and three applications later, the Labour-run and controlled Bradford Council granted planning permission. However, throughout this whole period, many residents, including my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), questioned time and again whether the planning applications were scrutinised by Bradford Council in enough detail.
I only entered this place in 2019. I have therefore taken the time to look back at Labour-run Bradford Council’s report, which was produced by its assistant director for planning for a planning committee that met in February 2017. The report included a recommendation to grant planning permission. I have a copy of that report here and it makes worrying reading. It concludes that there are no community safety implications. Bradford Council’s air quality officer registered no objection. The Environment Agency registered no objection at the planning stage, commenting that
“We…have established that there are no show stoppers or serious concerns relating to the location of the proposed development”,
despite it being in close proximity to many homes and situated in the bottom of a valley.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I am facing a very similar situation in the Delves Lane area of my constituency at the moment, where I have just heard that the local authority, Durham County Council, has done a deal with a local developer to not put forward planning permission until after the local elections. Is not that exactly the sort of issue that we are facing with these proposals when they come forward: shady backroom deals, often dragged out for longer in order to avoid democratic scrutiny? My hon. Friend has rightly highlighted the issue he faces in his constituency.
Robbie Moore
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. To be quite honest, I am not surprised and I find that an absolute disgrace to hear. We are talking about incinerators being developed right next to people’s homes, in close proximity to schools, care homes, and where people will be growing up and wanting to thrive in a sustainable environment. I am sorry to hear that he is experiencing a similar situation with Durham County Council.
The planning committee report made comments that concluded that planning permission should be granted. I quote another worrying statement:
“The proposal addresses the waste needs of Bradford community in proximity to the waste arisings.”
Given that Keighley is situated on the periphery of Bradford district, that is factually incorrect. So I say to Labour-run Bradford Council: Keighley will not be treated as your dumping ground.
The report goes on:
“The proposal enhances the environment and”—
wait for it, Madam Deputy Speaker—
“promotes recycling.”
That is complete and utter nonsense. How on earth can burning waste be classed by Bradford Council as enhancing the quality of the environment, when it is known that particulate matter such as sulphates, nitrates, ammonia, sodium chloride and black carbon enter the atmosphere from such a process? I can only conclude that the council must be taking us in Keighley for fools. And then to go on to say that the incinerator, which burns waste, promotes recycling—that goes beyond taking the biscuit.
Following Bradford Council’s planning approval, the applicant, Endless Energy, applied to the Environment Agency for an environmental permit, triggering a two-stage consultation process, with the second consultation taking place just last year. The Environment Agency promoted that it was “minded to approve” the permit—again, all this despite the valid concerns that had been raised by residents, the Aire Valley Against Incineration campaign team, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and myself.
If that was not bad enough, the Environment Agency decided to hold its supposedly open and transparent consultation right in the middle of a pandemic—a consultation, I might add, that took place wholly online, denying my residents with no digital connectivity or internet access the ability to contribute. That consultation contained over 50 documents for the general public to review, yet, due to the pandemic, those documents were not made publicly available in local libraries or community spaces as one would typically expect. I raised my concerns, and admittedly extra time was granted by the Environment Agency for the consultation, but the stark reality is that members of the public from my constituency and beyond were given an inadequate chance to properly scrutinise the proposals and properly comment on the concerns regarding air quality that they had originally raised.
I want to provide some clear examples of the Environment Agency’s failings to be open and transparent throughout this process. The campaign team experienced significant delays in respect of freedom of information requests. Under the terms of the FOI regulations, the Environment Agency is required to reply within 20 working days. The worst example experienced by the campaign team was a delay of four months. That is completely unacceptable. It resulted in a lost opportunity to carry out proper scrutiny of the applicant’s information.
Here is a second example: there were missing documents that were not made available to the public at the start of the second consultation. Copies of all five of the EA’s notices sent to the applicant were omitted, meaning that the public could see only the answers from the applicant and not the questions that the Environment Agency asked. Those missing documents were made available only when I and the campaign team asked for them.
To be frank, that is shoddy work from a regulatory body, and I cannot express my frustration and anger enough. I am exceptionally pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who I know cares deeply about ensuring that our regulatory bodies do their job properly, is listening and is able to take on board the challenges that we have faced. My constituents deserve much better
The potential impact on people’s health of the incineration process cannot be ignored. In a 10-page submission that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and I jointly submitted to the Environment Agency, we raised the following concerns: issues with the inadequate and unfair consultation process itself; concerns about noise and odour pollution; and concerns about the fact that the incinerator is built at the bottom of a valley, the resultant challenges of the topography, and the public health implications of emissions as a result of temperature or cloud inversions.
We also raised concerns that pollution modelling used unreliable data. I will give an example. The Environment Agency used data from the Bingley weather station. The Bingley weather station is located 262 metres above sea level, whereas the proposed Aire valley incinerator is situated roughly 85 metres above sea level. That discrepancy in evaluation means that the estimated dispersal of emissions from the incinerator is based on information from a weather station in a significantly raised position, where wind speeds behave much differently from those experienced at the bottom of the Aire valley.
We raised concerns about the proposed monitoring of emissions and any enforcement action that is likely to follow. We raised issues with the stack height. The incinerator is proposed to have a stack height—a chimney height—of only 60 metres, yet other comparable incinerators have stacks far higher, where emissions are better dispersed.
I could continue—the list goes on—but perhaps the most significant of our concerns is the impact the incinerator will have on human health via air quality. The Minister will be aware that, back in 2018 and 2019, Public Health England funded a study to examine emissions of particulate matter from incinerators and their impact on human health. The study found that, while emissions of particulate matter from waste incinerators are low and often make a small contribution to ambient background levels, they make a contribution nevertheless. Of course, there are many variables and influencing factors, such as the stack height, the surrounding topography, the feedstock, the microclimate—again, the list goes on.
Residents are rightly concerned—I share their concerns—about the impact on air quality, not just from the incinerator itself but from the increased traffic flows bringing waste to the site. Unbelievably, in questioning the decision making for the award of the environmental permit, I was told by the Environment Agency that it could consider only the emissions from the incinerator itself, not those from the increased traffic flow from the heavy vehicles that will bring the waste to the site, because that was a planning matter, which Labour-run Bradford Council had already considered and deemed to be acceptable.
It is my strong view that my constituents have been let down: failed by our Labour-run local authority, which claims to have its residents’ best interests at heart, but also let down by the Environment Agency, a regulatory body that, in my view, carried out a half-hearted attempt through its consultation process. May I use this opportunity to urge my hon. Friend the Minister to do all in her power to take a close look at the Environment Agency’s involvement, to hold it to account and to ensure that it fulfils its statutory duty and that its involvement in such consultations takes place in a proper manner?
I want to use the last few moments to talk about the role of incineration in general, and about the circular economy. The circular economy means prioritising, reusing, repairing, refurbishing and recycling existing materials and regarding waste as something that can be turned into a resource. Many of us in this place and beyond will be familiar with the waste hierarchy, which gives top priority to preventing waste in the first place and, when waste is created, gives preference to preparing it for reuse, then for recycling, then for recovery and last of all for disposal, whether to landfill or waste incineration. As the Minister will be well aware, I believe that all Government policy should be based on this hierarchy.
I am pleased to see the extensive work that has gone into the Environment Bill, led by my hon. Friend the Minister, and also into the Government’s resource and waste strategy. I was proud to sit on the Environment Bill Committee and see that piece of legislation work its way through this House. I look forward to getting involved in more of the debates as it comes back to this Chamber. It is my firm view that if we are serious about investing in our circular economic model, we must, as a country, incentivise reuse, recovery and recycling practices. Of course I appreciate that some waste simply cannot fall into those categories, but we must do all we can to discourage incineration and landfill practices as the preferred option.
That brings me on to the introduction of an incineration tax, which is something that I have raised in this place before, and I commend this option. Unlike incineration, landfill is already subject to a tax, and an incineration tax could work in a similar way. It would be a fiscal de-incentivisation to incineration and could lead to more innovation in other practices, such as recycling. Of course, an incineration tax is not new or radical. Other countries have already adopted it, including the Netherlands, Sweden and Austria.
We owe it to the next generation to ensure that the planet is left safe and in a much better place than we found it. However, building more incinerators such as the Aire valley incinerator, the one in my constituency, goes against everything we are trying to achieve. I know that many other colleagues from across the House are of the same view. I suspect that it will be a couple of years before the Aire valley incinerator is built and becomes operational, and I dread the date, but I wish to reassure all residents in my constituency that the campaign to stop it is by no means over. I will do all I can to ensure that their voice is heard, and to ensure that the operator, and those overseeing it—Labour-run Bradford Council and the Environment Agency—are watched like a hawk. I will ensure that their actions are scrutinised every step of the way.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is so good, as ever, to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. My goodness, that was a fiery presentation—I am not joking—on a hot topic. I expect nothing less from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), because he has spoken to me many times about this issue, and I know that he has very much wanted to bring it to our attention in the Chamber. He has certainly done that in respect of the proposal for an incinerator in the Aire valley in his constituency, which would deal with 148,000 tonnes of commercial, industrial and municipal waste and is expected to be operational in a few years’ time.
Before going into detail on the particular proposal, I start by saying that my views have not changed at all. I have spoken about this many times in other debates, as has my hon. Friend, and the Government’s attention remains firmly on exactly what he talked about towards the end of his eloquent speech. Our intention is to focus on reducing, recycling, reusing and, indeed, cutting down on all waste and moving to a circular economy. This is absolutely the direction of travel, and we have targets in place to enable us to do that now.
We have a raft of targets. We have a target to increase overall recycling rates to 65% by 2035. We have a target for zero avoidable waste by 2050. We have a target of 10% of waste or less going to landfill by 2035. There are a lot of measures in the Environment Bill that will move us in that direction. I have just been before the Environmental Audit Committee to talk about one of the packaging reforms, the deposit return scheme, which will contribute towards driving us in the direction of cutting waste. I am pleased to say that today we launched the consultation, which is a big moment in moving us in the right direction.
For clarity, I reiterate that it was the Labour-run City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council that granted planning permission back in 2017. The council sends 58.4% of its collected and managed waste for incineration, which is interesting.
I will now talk about the Aire valley permission, but I also want to set out the steps that the Environment Agency took following that planning permission to grant its permits. In September 2018, Endless Energy Ltd applied to the Environment Agency for an environmental permit to operate an energy-from-waste site on Aire Valley Road. The agency’s technical assessment of the application began shortly after receiving the application, and it held its first public consultation between 1 November and 13 December 2018. Some 2,000 comments were received during that consultation. The agency then consulted further on its draft decision between 8 June and 12 August 2020, and it received 1,600 comments.
I take the points that my hon. Friend made pretty vociferously that there were some documents missing in the first consultation—I will not beat about the bush on that. It was an admin error, and the EA duly reacted, put them in and extended the consultation. I think he will agree that that did happen.
The agency then considered all the comments received during both the consultation stages, and the final decision document was produced and is publicly available. It describes how the EA considered the issues raised. The main concern, which my hon. Friend highlighted, was that the site is in a valley that regularly experiences temperature inversions, resulting in misty conditions and a perception that emissions from the process will be trapped in that mist.
The Environment Agency verified the modelling of air emissions provided by the applicant to ensure it included an appropriate variety of weather conditions, including temperature inversions in the valley. The agency also undertook its own detailed modelling of air emissions, and it is satisfied that the concerns are unfounded and the installation will not have a significant impact on air quality—the EA has to follow due process and do the modelling.
The EA has issued information to explain its decision making, as well as to explain how Endless Energy’s application was assessed and the factors taken into account. The agency’s decision document sets out the details and the reasons for proposing the conditions on the permit. As a result of this thorough process, the EA determined that the applicant provided sufficient information for it to be satisfied that the facility will not compromise air quality limits or standards and will meet the relevant environmental requirements for this type of facility. The Environment Agency therefore decided on 8 December 2020 to issue the permit to allow Endless Energy to operate the facility as described in the application and in the additional information provided.
It should be noted that the permit sets out the legally binding conditions that Endless Energy Ltd must follow to protect the air quality, the groundwater and the surface water, and to ensure the safe storage, management and disposal of waste. As with all energy from waste, the use of abatement systems is required to keep emissions and air pollutants within strict limits set down in legislation. That includes oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, metal smoke and dioxins.
The permit also include conditions to minimise the risk of accidents, noise, odour and so forth, and as part of its regulatory regime the EA carries out regular inspections. The facility will be subjected to those, but I assure my hon. Friend that I will hold the EA’s feet to the fire to ensure that those things are done and the due process is followed. It is essential that people feel that the due process is being followed and they are safe. I assure him that regular monitoring will be carried out. If the agency identifies that an energy-from-waste plant breaches any of its permit conditions, appropriate enforcement actions will be taken. That may be a warning, first of all, for a minor breach. Enforcement notices can be put in place or, indeed, a prosecution as and if necessary.
My hon. Friend raised concerns about the planning process. Of course, planning decisions are a matter for the local planning authority, which in this case is the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council. The national planning policy framework sets out the planning policies for England and how they should be applied, including consideration for such things as traffic and the build-up of transport issues. He rightly made his views about the planning situation very clear—I will not comment on it—as did my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), who made some similar comments about his own constituency.
We take air quality extremely seriously as a Government, and we are fully committed to reducing air pollution. The World Health Organisation has praised our UK clean air strategy as an example for the rest of the world to follow. Indeed, we are pouring £3.8 billion into cleaning up our air, and we have an enormous strategy of bringing in clean air zones across the country to keep people healthy, because this is a major health issue. Our landmark Environment Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley knows, is bringing through ambitious new air quality targets to help reduce the public health impacts.
I must point out that energy-from-waste plants in England are regulated, as I said, by the EA, and they must comply with the strict limits set down in legislation in terms of air quality. Public Health England’s position remains that modern, well run and regulated municipal waste incinerators do not have a significant impact on air quality. In addition, they must use what we call, technically, best available techniques—that is the kit and equipment that they have to put in to meet environmental standards and reinforce the levels of environmental protection. That is really important, and those techniques have recently been reviewed.
I reiterate my message at the beginning that, on a wider note, the Government are absolutely committed to cutting down waste. We will reduce, recycle and re-use. We are meeting all the targets that I outlined at the beginning. We are bringing through the measures that we need. What will happen is exactly what my hon. Friend suggests: there will be less waste. Producers will be responsible for all the waste and packaging that they put on the market. They will be responsible for its whole lifecycle and the full net costs. They will not want to have to pay for it to end up somewhere else, such as incineration, which is, bar landfill, right at the end of our waste hierarchy.
The ambition is to have less and less waste going to incineration. There will always be some that will have to go to the lower ends of the waste hierarchy, but the key is that the incinerators have to be safe, regulated, and well run. In a perfect world, not only would they generate energy from waste, but we would capture all the other heat that they create. They should be geared up for that in future.
The tax matter that my hon. Friend raised is really for Her Majesty’s Treasury. The 2018 Budget set out the Government’s long-term ambition to minimise the amount of waste going to incineration or landfill, but if the policies do not deliver that cut in waste the introduction of a tax on incineration will be considered. I think I will end there. It was a terrifically vociferous speech. He made his case unbelievably clearly, but hopefully the message that I am giving is that we are cutting down on waste, and we certainly take such things as air quality extremely seriously.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Wage floor to the furlough scheme
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
NHS Pay
(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
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to the normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. The timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between debates. I remind Members participating, physically and virtually, that they must arrive for the start of a debate in Westminster Hall and are expected to remain for the entire debate. I must remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to one another 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 using them and before leaving the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall. Members attending physically who are speaking in the latter stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery initially and move on to the horseshoe when seats become available there. Members can speak from the horseshoe only where there are microphones. Sadly, because this is a very well subscribed debate, there will be a three-minute time limit for all Back-Bench speakers.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered NHS pay.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) for co-sponsoring this debate. I am pleased to have been allocated such a generous amount of time for the debate. That is entirely justified given the importance of the subject at hand—NHS pay.
I thank all those who have taken the time to sign the following petitions: e-petition 300073, signed by more than 170,000 people and titled “Increase pay for NHS healthcare workers and recognise their work”; e-petition 316307, titled “Award all Nursing Staff in the NHS a pay rise of 10% backdated to 1 April 2020” and signed by more than 140,000 people; and e-petition 560253, which is titled “Recognise all members of NHS nursing profession by giving them a 12.5% pay rise”, has been signed by more than 19,000 people and does not close until 7 June.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I sought before the debate the hon. Lady’s permission and your permission, Mr Hosie, to intervene. The petitions before us are an indication of the numbers of people across the whole United Kingdom who feel strongly about this issue. The people emailing me are not just NHS workers. They are families; they are people who have been recipients of the goodness of NHS workers. I believe that there is a moral obligation on us—I have said this to Government as well—to deliver a satisfactory pay increase for nurses. We need to give them a rose of appreciation in the springtime, not a dandelion.
Paula Barker
I completely concur with what the hon. Gentleman has said.
The figures that I have given lay bare the strength of feeling that people in our communities have for our incredible NHS staff as a whole. People who know me and have listened to any of my previous contributions on the public sector will know that I like to set the historical context, that context being the last decade and the political decisions taken by the Conservative party in office during that time, especially on matters of public spending and public sector pay—matters that are very close to my heart. During debates such as this, the Government may like to pretend that the pre-pandemic world does not exist. According to them, decisions that they take during the current economic crisis should be taken in the context of spiralling debt and deficits, as well as the looming prospect of inflation. But we have been here before, have we not, especially given that the last economic crisis was not too long ago? The Government are starting to sound like a broken record stuck on repeat, using the same smokescreens that they used in the early part of the last decade, which laid the pretext for an outright assault on public sector pay.
Public sector workers, and not least the brave women and men who staff our national health service, have long memories. What is it that I am referring to that existed at the front and centre of the NHS worker psyche going into this pandemic? It is the fact that nurses’ pay is down £840 in real terms since 2010. Further to that, the likes of the Health Foundation have stated that at the start of the pandemic, NHS wages were £600 lower per employee in real terms than in 2011-12. It is the fact that staff morale is at rock bottom, with many leaving certain NHS professions and the Government failing most spectacularly to fill the gap in staff shortages—nearly 50,000 combined vacancies exist across doctor and nursing professions. It is the fact that workers have had to endure rising demands on their work with less reward.
That is what NHS workers, who make up 4% of our entire labour market staff, have had to suck up since 2010 in order to pay for an economic crisis—a crisis in the casino economy that they had no part in creating. According to research delivered by London Economics for NHS trade unions, pay levels at every single Agenda for Change spine point have lagged behind inflation since 2010-11, resulting in a significant decline in total pay in real terms. Most spine points have exhibited a decline in excess of 10%, and total pay on the Agenda for Change spine point with the highest incidence of staff, at the top of band five, has declined by 15%. That is three times the decline in median earnings experienced by full-time private sector employees across the UK over the same timeframe.
Let all of us here today contextualise the debate by reflecting on the picture faced by our brilliant NHS staff before and going into the pandemic. They have had their pay cut, their spending power slashed, their living standards squeezed, and their morale smashed. That is the so-called old world that the new kids on the block—the Prime Minister and the Chancellor—would rather us all forget, one built by their predecessors. However, no amount of rebranding will disguise the fact that the current Government intend to continue the same legacy of making public sector workers pick up the tab for a crisis they had no part in creating. Indeed, this time it is even worse than that. They are paying for a crisis that they have ensured we have, and will, overcome. Some thanks, I say, and shame on this Government.
In this new decade, the message being received by NHS workers from the Government is this: brace yourself for more of the same. Staff in our NHS have had to endure all of that, and then 12 months ago were asked to once again go above and beyond, to gravely enter the unknown, risking their mental and physical health. They have sacrificed their family and personal lives. Some have paid the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives in the line of service, duty and compassion.
Let us cast our minds back to how terrifying the news headlines, the newspaper stories and social media chatter were when the virus first emerged on these shores. The virus was the absolutely terrifying unknown for all our people, except for our NHS workers who were not afforded the luxury of watching this public health crisis unfold from the sidelines as passive observers; they were the frontline against the great unknown.
To this day, their unrelenting commitment to the public service still moves me, as it should all people here today in Westminster Hall. I am not one to often quote Winston Churchill, or indeed make wartime references, but never was so much owed by so many to so few. If any of this brave few were able to come up for breath for just a moment, maybe because of their shift patterns, and sit in front of a TV screen on a Thursday evening last year, they would have seen many ordinary folk applauding their efforts. They would also have witnessed the galling sight of the occupiers of No.10 and No.11 clapping for the photo op, with little intention of rewarding them for their work, their sacrifice or their trauma.
Appreciation of NHS workers is not about rhetoric, warm words and pats on the head. Let me be absolutely clear. Claps and smiles do not pay the bills. It is about deeds and actions, and when it comes to NHS pay, the only deeds and actions made by the Government have been a fresh round of insulting pay offers, or, in real terms, pay cuts.
The Prime Minister recently told the House of Commons that the Government have delivered a 12.8% increase in the starting salary of nurses. It may well be true to say that some—but not all—nurses have received a pay rise of more than 12% since 2017-18. However, that is in cash terms, not in real terms, and it does not account for the fact that inflation erodes the spending power of workers’ wages over time. It is a flattering figure in other ways: it applies only to one group of nurses rather than reflecting the experiences of all NHS workers in England, and it does not take into account the years of austerity that defined the years prior to 2017-18. The Government cannot spin an assertion that they are awarding pay rises when millions of NHS workers know the exact opposite is true.
All we ever hear from the penny-pinchers that occupy the Government Benches is that we cannot afford this or that—basically, anything of social value or any moral good. The old mantra that public sector equals bad and private sector equals good is making a return. This tired politics draws the economic orthodoxy to the conclusion that suppressing public sector pay is of economic benefit in times of crisis, rather than the opportunity to grow the economy that it represents. It is almost as if a decision has been taken according to the same logic that public wages are a drain on the public purse and therefore a resource to be tapped into in order to control public finances when it suits.
It is sound economics to deliver a just and fair pay rise for NHS staff and a decent pay rise is affordable. Currently, just over 1 million nurses, midwives, allied health professionals and NHS support staff are covered by the Agenda for Change pay framework in England. The same aforementioned research conducted by London Economics concluded that a 10% increase to the NHS England pay bill amounting to £3.4 billion would result in the net expenditure of only £0.66 billion when including factors that are offset against the original figure.
Such offsets include increased tax receipts, because public sector workers pay taxes, and increases in direct, indirect and induced tax receipts, because public sector workers spend money in their local areas that helps to grow local economies and support communities. A pro-public sector agenda is a pro-business agenda. It is a miracle that public and private sector workers exhibit similar economic behaviours—who knew?
There would also be savings in recruitment and retention, because better paid staff are happier staff. There is even an extra £130 million in savings from the lower student debt write-offs for nursing students. This is the sort of sensible, moral and longer-term economic thinking the Government are totally incapable of. Instead, we have crumbs for midwives and support staff; their dignity, livelihoods and take-home pay is unaffordable, according to this Government, but not lucrative, publicly funded contracts for the friends of Tory Ministers to deliver personal protective equipment shortages and botched public health projects to the tune of billions of pounds. Apparently, that sort of spending is every bit affordable: in fact, we are told, it should be celebrated. Not only do we have a Government guilty of cronyism, but of skewed priorities. We see that only too well today when not a single Conservative Member apart from the Minister is here for this debate.
Government policy on the NHS tells us everything that we need to know. Nurses, midwives and support staff are left neglected, their immense contributions disregarded, forgotten by a Government and party intent on reverting to type. There is no policy impact assessment, as the real burden for public sector pay restraint will once again fall on the shoulders of women who make up so much of the public sector, especially our NHS. There is no regional impact assessment on areas more reliant on public sector spending, such as my city of Liverpool—so much for the levelling-up agenda.
To round up, the public overwhelmingly support a pay rise for NHS staff because they, like me, understand and appreciate their service each and every day; in times long before covid, during it and long after. They are out on the frontline, as I speak here today, delivering vaccine shots in the arms of millions of people, as well as catching up on the huge backlog of urgent elective care procedures while the Government parade around this place telling us that the economics will not permit just recognition and reward. If any group of workers in our National Health Service collectively decide that enough is enough and they embark on a course of industrial action, they will have unwavering solidarity. I appeal to the Government to change their course, walk the walk on NHS pay and give the NHS staff the pay rise that they so deeply deserve.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I am very pleased to have secured today’s debate alongside my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) and for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley).
Workers across the public sector have faced unprecedented challenges during the pandemic, and NHS staff have been at the forefront of our response to the coronavirus, spending long hours in suffocating PPE in overwhelming environments. A nurse described to me that it felt like they were part of a horror movie. Frontline NHS staff at Luton and Dunstable hospital have told me that colleagues have broken down on many occasions, and that the past year has had a severe psychological impact on them owing to stress associated with separation from their families, sleep deprivation and heavy workloads. The whole of society is extremely thankful for their work in protecting us, looking after our loved ones and keeping the country going.
The country came together to clap for our carers, but claps do not pay the bills and NHS workers deserve to be rewarded for their dedication. The Government’s recommendation of a 1% increase for NHS staff in England is truly shameful. After a decade of austerity, TUC research shows that if the 1% increase goes through for 2021-22, nurses’ pay will be £2,500 less than in 2010 when adjusted for inflation, with an equivalent fall of £3,330 for paramedics and £850 for porters. Experienced nurses will take home only an extra £3.50 a week. Not only does the 1% pay proposal reflect the Conservative party’s complete undervaluing of NHS staff, but it even breaks their previous measly promise of a 2.1% pay increase set out in the NHS long-term plan.
The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and Unison have all told the Government to reconsider the pay offer. A recent poll from Opinium found that 72% of UK adults believe the Government’s 1% pay proposal is too low.
We have heard already that there is a nursing vacancy crisis that is compromising staff safety. Although the Government state that they are recruiting more nurses, there are still more than 36,000 nursing vacancies, including 3,314 in the eastern region where my constituency is, which has barely changed over the past year. The issue is retention. How do the Government expect to retain experienced nursing staff who have suffered a sustained real-terms pay cut over the past decade? How can the Government expect people to aspire to a future career in the profession when there are reports of nurses having to access support from food banks?
A nurse at Luton and Dunstable hospital told me that they deserve proper recognition of the level of skill and responsibility needed for the roles that they do. They also said that there is no motivation, no incentive, no value or appreciation.
The latest figures from the NHS staff survey show that more than 300,000 staff worked unpaid over the past year. That is 13,000 more staff working overtime than in 2019. The Government might point to the uncertain financial situation and current low inflation for the real-terms pay cut, but that is economically illiterate. If affordability is the Government’s main contention, they should consider the knock-on benefits. The Government hope—
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
Order. I am afraid the three minutes are up. You can have half a sentence.
Rachel Hopkins
Apologies. We know the NHS staff will spend pay rises in their local economy, and that will help to rebuild as well.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) for leading this important debate, and I thank the Members who co-sponsored it. I especially thank my fantastic fellow Luton MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins). I know that her commitment to the NHS and every healthcare worker in it runs deep. Together we will keep fighting for every healthcare worker in Luton to get the recognition, pay and protections that they deserve. It should run deep for everyone, not just during the pandemic, and it should certainly last longer than the minute that the Prime Minister stands on his steps to clap for the key workers who saved his life and the lives of countless others, and who held the hands of the 126,000 loved ones lost this year.
Among those who lost their lives were healthcare workers, going into battle with covid-19 under-resourced, underfunded and overworked. After the year we have had, I cannot fathom why the Chancellor thought a pay cut was good enough for healthcare workers. It is not good enough. Frankly, it is a disgrace, and I am embarrassed at the excuses that have been given. One Conservative peer even suggested that nurses were lucky to have their jobs, which is an insult. What porters, cleaners, paramedics, nurses, carers, healthcare assistants, operating department practitioners, administration staff, midwives and doctors need and deserve is not Ministers putting their hands together, but Ministers putting their hands in their pockets and their money where their mouth is. Give our healthcare workers a pay rise!
I pay tribute to healthcare workers’ hard work, commitment and sacrifice. It has taken a toll, not only on them, but on their families. A Facebook memory flashed up for me today. It is eight years to the day since my mum, Siew Owen, retired from being a matron. That did not mean she stopped working; she went back to be a staff nurse for the last eight years of her career and only fully retired this year. She worked for a total of 47 years for the NHS after coming from Malaysia when she was just 19. She and thousands of other nurses like her come from all over the world to care for our sick and build our healthcare system. However, if she had come today, under this Government she would have faced a number of unnecessary and unjustifiable barriers, because it is not only pay that is an issue for NHS healthcare workers; there are also hidden costs.
This is the third time in probably as many weeks that I have sat opposite this Minister, and I will ask her again whether she believes that it is right to continue charging healthcare workers who have come here from overseas to use the very system they work in. Is the pause on the immigration health surcharge for NHS workers and care workers temporary, or will it continue post-pandemic? How is it right that a nurse at Luton and Dunstable University Hospital had to borrow money from other nurses to pay the IHS? I have asked the Minister this question before, and I have also put it to the Secretary of State, so I would be grateful if we could get a straight answer today for the healthcare heroes, to whom we owe a great debt. Healthcare workers prioritised our health during the pandemic; it is high time they were prioritised by this Government.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing this crucial debate and for her tireless efforts to ensure that our key workers get the fair pay they deserve.
Yesterday, we came together to reflect on the tragic events of the past year. We remembered the family members and friends we lost. We also paid tribute to those who cared for them. My constituency is home to the renowned St Thomas’ Hospital. That is the hospital that saved the life of the Prime Minister and the lives of countless other people during this pandemic. The hospital’s staff are now working hard to deliver the vaccine, while still maintaining the hospital’s regular services to the local community and to people from right across the country. I admit that I have a personal bias for St Thomas’ Hospital, as I received excellent care from the team there throughout my two pregnancies.
This past year has undoubtedly been one of the most difficult years for our NHS workers. They are physically and mentally exhausted. I recently had the pleasure of meeting the staff team at Saint Thomas’ when I was invited to speak at the Unison branch annual general meeting. I am proud to be a Unison member, and I am proud to have such an iconic hospital in my constituency. The staff team—including the dedicated nurses, security team, porters and junior doctors—told me about all the challenges they face while working day and night during this pandemic.
During the lockdown, I participated in the weekly clap for our carers, along with my son and daughter, because I genuinely wanted to show my appreciation. But clapping does not pay the bills. I know that, in some cases, nurses have to rely on food banks as they struggle to make ends meet. Many of my constituents who have been caught up in the cladding scandal are NHS key workers. They have been working long hours and making personal sacrifices to keep us safe, but now they face extortionate costs that they cannot afford.
A 1% pay rise is not a meaningful pay rise; after inflation, it is essentially a pay cut. It sends all the wrong signals to the NHS workers who have kept our country going during this dreadful pandemic. It is an utter betrayal by this Government not to give our NHS workers a bigger pay rise. The Prime Minister spent three nights in intensive care, on a ward for patients who needed specialist attention. He said afterwards:
“I can’t thank them enough. I owe them my life.”
Jenny and Luis stood by the Prime Minister’s bedside, watching him during the night. The NHS protected him. It protected us. Now is the time when we must protect it.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
It has been a year now since hospital beds started filling up. Since then, there have been more than 126,000 deaths: our mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters, friends, neighbours and colleagues—in the NHS, more colleagues than most. Last night, like many others, I reflected on a heartbreaking year of loss, but while last year was tragic, what happened was not unavoidable. Implementing the first lockdown just one week earlier, as advised, could have halved the early mortality rate. Our hospitals and NHS staff weathered a storm of the Government’s making.
Let us cast our minds back to March 2020. It seems implausible now that the Prime Minister was boasting about shaking hands with every person he met on a visit to a hospital with covid-19 patients. Edwina Currie compared him with Princess Diana. Others were less favourable. It has been revealed by the BBC this week that the Prime Minister said that the best thing would be to ignore the virus and that overreaction would do more harm than good.
The NHS is facing immense challenges, and overcoming them will be fundamental to its survival. There is the pandemic, of course, and the small matter of rolling out the most ambitious vaccination programme in the nation’s history. Not only is our NHS asked to bear the brunt of the pandemic; it is forced to do it with one hand tied behind its back. In February, NHS hospitals, mental health services and community providers were reporting a shortage of nearly 84,000 staff; 38,000 of those vacancies were for nurses—the enduring backbone of our national health service. A decade of underfunding, lack of accessible training and failure to prioritise healthcare workers have hit the NHS hard, but the Minister knows that—it is a situation of Government design.
The NHS is sick. It is underfunded and understaffed. Just as a sick patient is not aided by removing their medicine, the NHS will not be healed by cutting the pay of its workers. The Government’s and their spin doctors’ praise for the NHS has been almost evangelical. We have seen the Prime Minister clapping on our TV screens. We have heard Tory Ministers refer to NHS workers as heroes and angels. We saw the hyperbolic outburst reach fever pitch when the Health Secretary cried on national breakfast television. Most of the NHS workers I know have no desire for constant praise and adoration. They do not want to be called angels. They are skilled professionals who have worked and are working through a deadly pandemic. Most would be happy for their hospitals to be properly funded, for their patients to be given the best chance of survival and, finally, for a pay packet reflecting their workload. To cry hero, and then cut pay, is as manipulative and cruel as it is unsurprising, from a party that has systematically sought to undermine the health service and its workers.
The NHS has done so much more than just jobs during the pandemic. Its staff risked their lives every single day for our most vulnerable. They held the hands of those in the their final moments whose loved ones could not. They have been a bright flame of hope in a year filled with anxiety and fear. NHS workers have given us more than we can ever give back. Their compassion, bravery and will is something we may not ever be able fully to repay. The recognition of their work can be fulfilled by a decent pay rise.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) and for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) for their hard work in securing the debate. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I want to begin by paying tribute to the healthcare heroes who continue to fight on the frontline of the pandemic. In recent weeks I had the great honour of meeting local members of the Royal College of Nursing. Despite the terrible toll that the fight against the disease took on every one of them, their professionalism and commitment to their patients never faltered. While many of us eagerly await a return to normal, they will continue to grapple with the deadly after-effects of covid for years to come, as the NHS struggles to address a backlog of nearly 4 million people.
What has been their reward for their unceasing efforts and tireless self-sacrifice? It is a miserable 1% pay rise that amounts to a real-terms cut and that will barely cover regulators’ registration fees or parking charges. Over the past year, Ministers who have built careers gutting the NHS have spouted warm words for our national health service, and Tory MPs have indulged in shameless photo ops, applauding on their doorsteps, but when the time came to crunch the numbers, they refused utterly to give healthcare workers the pay rise they deserve. They should hang their heads in shame.
At the very moment when the Government should be shoring up the foundations of the NHS, they risk blowing them up entirely by driving thousands of people out of the profession with this insulting real-terms pay cut. Already, too many NHS workers are struggling to make ends meet. Some 39% of nurses have been forced to skip meals to feed their families. Those who make up the bedrock of our health service—the healthcare assistants, cleaners and porters, to name but a few—are some of the most financially precarious workers in the country, all too often surviving on poverty pay and turning to rip-off payday loans just to get by.
Meanwhile, the NHS is facing a staffing crisis that risks seriously jeopardising patient safety. There are already more than 5,000 nursing vacancies in the north-west alone, a figure that is likely to soar in just a few short years, and that is not taking into account the 30% of nurses who will be driven out of the profession by this shameful pay deal.
Our healthcare workers deserve so much better. They know it, the Opposition know it and the British public know it. What we need now is a substantial, well-earned pay rise for health workers that, at long last, recognises all they do for our country and that sets our NHS on a confident footing to face the great challenges of the difficult years ahead.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate with you in the Chair, Mr Hosie, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) on securing it.
We are all, rightly, incredibly grateful for the work that NHS staff have done over the last year. They have consistently gone above and beyond to cope with surges of demand in hospitals, to care for people with covid and to support family members who could not visit those patients. Now, the NHS is running the largest vaccination drive we have ever seen. As a reward for this, the Government have proposed a miserly 1% pay rise. With inflation set to rise over the next year, that will mean that NHS staff who have done so much will actually receive a real-terms pay cut. That is shameful and insulting. Ministers should have recommended a real-terms pay rise for NHS staff.
The pay proposal for NHS staff manages to be both wrong and unpopular. More than two thirds of those surveyed, including nearly 60% of Conservative voters, think that a 1% pay rise is less than our NHS staff deserve—but some NHS staff are even more underpaid. Last week, I met healthcare assistants from the north-west to listen to them talk about their roles and their pay. Band 2 healthcare assistants are among the lowest paid NHS staff. In theory, they carry out personal care tasks for patients, such as feeding, bathing and dressing. However, many healthcare assistants are in fact carrying out more wide-ranging and demanding tasks, such as casting broken bones, washing and sealing wounds, and carrying out observations or cannulations—tasks that should be carried out by a band 3 healthcare assistant, who would be paid nearly £2,000 a year more.
In one NHS trust in Greater Manchester, 98% of the healthcare assistants are employed on band 2, compared with a regional average of only 55%. That is straightforwardly keeping costs down by employing staff on one band and asking them to do the work of a higher-paid band. They are being systematically underpaid for the work they do. It is not acceptable. All NHS staff deserve to be fairly paid. When the Minister sums up, can she confirm that Ministers will ensure that all trusts have the funding they need to pay healthcare assistants fairly for the work that they are doing?
Finally, I want to come back to the 1%. For a healthcare assistant I talked to last week, who earns £9.80 an hour, the 1% increase will mean 9p an hour extra. A better pay rise is needed if we want NHS staff to stay in their vital roles in the vaccine roll-out, on covid wards and in handling the big backlog of elective surgery, screening and routine services. A better pay rise is deserved by NHS staff, who went above and beyond in the pandemic, who risked their lives and those of their families, and whom we applauded week in, week out. Clapping does not pay the bills. NHS staff are worth more than the miserly 1% on offer, and the public overwhelmingly agree.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) [V]
It is a real pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie—and looking so well. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) for securing this debate.
For the last year, as has been said, our NHS staff have been toiling night and day, working bravely and selflessly to protect us from this terrible virus. Even before this pandemic, NHS staff were working an extra 1.1 million hours of unpaid overtime—it is a disgrace. It is those same nurses, doctors, porters, ambulance drivers, paramedics and so many more who have kept our wonderful NHS going. Even when they were on the brink of being overwhelmed by the fifth highest covid death rate in the world, and despite the terrible trauma they have experienced, our doctors and nurses have held people’s hands as they died alone. They have watched the fear and borne the grief of 126,000 people and families, and counting.
Now our NHS staff are on the brink of being overwhelmed too—they are simply exhausted. They have done their jobs bravely night after night, day after day, and they are still doing their jobs, with barely a break, a full year on. My gratitude is beyond words. But we must recognise that NHS staff bear scars from the past year that will last. Almost 60% of nurses experienced a mental health problem during that first wave. In some trusts, the proportion of staff absences relating to mental ill health has doubled.
Our NHS bears the scars too. In January, more than 300,000 people waited more than a year for treatment in hospital, and that figure will have only grown. Our NHS will recover its full health and wellbeing when its staff can recover theirs. That requires action to guarantee decent pay, conditions and, basically, respect. After all our NHS has gone through, if we offer real-terms pay cuts, rather than what our NHS heroes deserve, our gratitude will prove hollow, superficial and meaningless, and it will damage our NHS further. How disgraceful is that? How much more will the health of communities suffer?
The people who have cared for us deserve so much more. This Government must understand the needs of the NHS, deliver for its staff and deliver now.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
In the time-honoured words, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and to see you in rude good health. To follow that, if I can—almost everything has been said—I heartily congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing this debate.
Let us take this down to brass tacks. First, one of my best friends very, very nearly died of covid, and it was NHS staff who hauled him back from the edge. He is a pal of mine and, in a personal way, I am deeply grateful. All of us will have had similar experiences.
Secondly, it is a sad, true fact that another pandemic will come one day, because that is the nature of human life and the world—these viruses mutate and will come at us again. Therefore, we want to be even better prepared next time, so we have to have our NHS staff at tip-top levels of performance—they have to be absolutely ready. There is no doubt that if people do not get the pay they think they deserve, or the public, in this case, think they deserve, that demoralises NHS staff. When they are demoralised, some people will leave the profession; they will retire early and pack it in, and that is not what we want. As others have said, the general public expect better than 1%. In the Scottish Parliament, Liberal Democrat colleagues will work in a positive way with the Scottish Government to secure a better deal—pay is of course devolved north of the border.
I have one lesson, which relates to when I came to this place nearly four years ago. I said to myself then, “What was austerity all about?” I say that because, now that we have gone into the pandemic, money seems to just appear. So my final point is that the Government can give a better pay rise than 1%—it can be done. Strategically, for the health of the nation, and for the defence of the nation against a killer virus and another pandemic, that should be put in place as soon as possible.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie.
I thank my good friend the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing this debate just days after the Government’s shameful decision to give our NHS heroes a paltry 1% pay rise. My hon. Friend has a long track record of championing workers’ rights during her time as a regional convenor for Unison North West, where she fought for better pay and conditions for all public sector workers.
I also pay tribute to Unison North West, which has done so much for tens of thousands of members across our region, many of whom are NHS staff. Its One Team2k campaign has highlighted the need for every worker in the NHS to be given a £2,000 pay rise and to bring the minimum pay to £10.23 per hour, taking the NHS pay float above the real living wage.
It should come as no surprise that during this debate we have heard repeated criticism of the Government’s decision to award NHS staff a 1% pay rise. After the most challenging year for the NHS since its inception, when staff have been stretched to breaking point to keep our country safe and deliver first-class care, despite a chronically underfunded health service, this is no way to reward them.
The Government should hang their heads in shame. To put all of this in context, a 1% pay rise amounts to just £223 million a year, or 2.23% of the £10 billion set aside for new nuclear warheads, and just 0.22% of the £37 billion for the failed Test and Trace programme. If we combine that with the £30 million that the Health Secretary squandered on covid contracts for his former neighbour, we will see that the decision not to give money to those who deserve it most is quite clearly an ideological one.
One of the many lessons the Government should take away from this pandemic is that their death by a thousand cuts approach to the NHS prior to this crisis left it exposed and struggling to cope. We are far from being out of the woods, and now should be the time for not only investing to deal with the current pandemic, but planning for the future. That means retaining existing NHS staff.
Given how they have been treated by this Government, is it any wonder that research by Unison has found that 52% of NHS workers are considering leaving their position within the next year, with one in 10 considering that option very seriously? That is a staggering statistic, and it is not simply because those staff feel overstretched after an incredibly difficult period; it is because 70% feel worse off than a year ago. That is simply unacceptable. They include staff at Stepping Hill Hospital in Stockport and Mr David McAllister, who runs the Unison health branch at the hospital. The Government’s policy right across the public sector should be fair pay for fair work.
It is also unacceptable that staff are being expected to do more for less. There are countless stories of healthcare assistants being employed at band 2 while being trained to do band 3 work. The situation is made even worse by the fact that band 2 staff earn less than £10 an hour, which in many parts of this country, particularly London, is a poverty wage. That is often stretched further still, as almost half of the people served by Unison revealed that they were the main breadwinner in their family. I hope that the Minister will listen and that the shameful 1% figure will be revised.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie? I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) for raising this important debate.
I am proud to be a member of GMB and Unite, two of the trade unions in the NHS, and have had extensive consultations with constituents in the Royal College of Nursing who are rightly appalled at the 1% offer being floated.
Talk is cheap, but retaining the NHS’s status as the jewel in our national crown is not. Ten years of austerity and real-terms pay cuts for our NHS staff left our NHS on its knees when the pandemic struck. It is a credit to the incredible efforts of our NHS staff, who put their own lives on the line every single day, that we are now at a point where we can talk about what life after covid might look like.
Two nurses in Warrington gave their lives caring for others through this pandemic: Andy Collier, a nurse practitioner at Hollins Park Hospital, and Joselito Habab, a nurse at Warrington Hospital. May their memories forever be a blessing.
Beyond the ultimate sacrifice that they paid, I have spoken to dozens of NHS workers in Warrington about their own sacrifices, including an intensive therapy unit nurse who has been living in a caravan, away from her family home and children. She is terrified about bringing covid home to her family, as she sees the reality of this virus every single day at work. Other NHS workers moved into the Peace Centre to keep their families safe as they cared for the families of others. They are overworked, overwhelmed and yes, underpaid.
NHS staff are among those accessing support from Warrington food bank, and thousands are suffering the mental health effects of their experiences not only in dealing with the pandemic but in trying to make ends meet.
A real-terms NHS pay cut is not only a kick in the teeth for our NHS frontline; it is also economically illiterate. The NHS is the country’s largest employer and putting pay in the pockets of our NHS staff means more money circulating around all of our communities as we recover from this pandemic, as it will be spent in our local shops, local tradespeople, childminders and supporting local economies.
Last year’s claps will not pay this year’s bills, so the Government need to come up with a figure that not only recognises the incredible national contribution that our NHS staff have made during this pandemic, including the thousands of hours of unpaid overtime, but that begins to close the gulf between their pay and inflation over the past 10 years. Anything less is an utter betrayal.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) on securing this debate and on standing up for the millions of NHS workers who have put their lives on the line during the covid crisis.
NHS workers need a pay rise not just because they have worked hard for the last year, but because they have had repeated real-terms pay cuts for the past 10 years. The pandemic has shone a light on the fact that for more than a decade, we have failed to value the work done by people in the NHS and care sectors. That has had real consequences.
We have all read the stories about empty Nightingale hospitals. Some of those hospitals were never used because we did not have the workers to staff them. It was a misunderstanding of the long-term crisis in recruitment and retention in the NHS—a crisis with no mystery, as successive pay freezes have had serious consequences on our ability to recruit to the NHS.
For example, pay rates for nurses in the UK are extremely uncompetitive internationally. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have heard evidence that Australian nurses are paid double the amount paid to those in the UK and that those in the US are paid one third more. Experts have even warned of a brain drain abroad. That is disgraceful when the cost of giving our NHS workers a pay rise is so low.
Based on the Treasury’s own figures, London Economics calculated that the net cost of the RCN’s proposal of a 12.5% pay rise is only £0.82 billion. Given that £37 billion has been found to fund Test and Trace for two years, when the annual NHS wage bill has been estimated to be £34 billion, questions should rightly be asked about what can and cannot be afforded.
Instead of investing in staff, the Government’s offer of 1% is only enough to buy NHS workers an extra cup of coffee a week. That is not valuing the work they do, and it does not make up for a decade of pay stagnation. It is no wonder that there are tens of thousands of nursing and other vacancies in the NHS. Instead of investing billions into underwriting profits for private companies, Ministers should be investing in our NHS and the workers who keep it running. The pandemic has shown us what happens when we do not do that.
It is time to end pay stagnation, to back the calls from the RCN, Unison, my own union the GMB and campaigns such as “NHS workers say no to public sector pay inequality”, and to give our NHS workers the pay rise they deserve, which can be achieved with the right goals.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) for securing this important debate.
I pay tribute to NHS staff across the Jarrow constituency for all they have done and continue to do in our fight against covid-19. I also pay tribute to all the South Tyneside District Hospital and Queen Elizabeth Hospital workers who have delivered vital care to many of my constituents throughout the pandemic.
NHS staff up and down the country have worked tirelessly in extremely challenging circumstances for the past 12 months, which makes the proposed 1% pay rise completely unacceptable. It is basically a slap in the face for more than a million hard-working NHS staff. I agree with the 14 health unions representing 1.3 million health workers who have called for a significant pay rise for NHS workers. It has been encouraging to see in my inbox messages of overwhelming public support for them. I am sure that colleagues have had the same experience.
As highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), a fair and decent pay rise is supported by recent independent analysis by London Economics. It found that the net cost of a pay rise is only around one fifth of the Government’s stated cost once factors such as the additional tax gained and the economic impact of extra consumer spending are taken into account.
There are currently an estimated 100,000 vacancies in the NHS. It is crucial that the NHS can recruit and retain existing staff to assist with the national recovery from the pandemic, because as we recover, the NHS faces new challenges such as the continued delivery of the vaccine roll-out, the potential for further waves of infection, the long-term increased demand on NHS services from long covid, as well as the clearance of the backlog of care that has built up over the last year. I hope the Minister will agree that a significant pay rise for NHS staff would make the NHS a more attractive career option, as well as help to retain those already working within it.
Many of us have applauded NHS staff from our doorsteps for keeping us safe throughout the pandemic. But sadly, clapping on our doorsteps does not put food on the table or pay the bills for those who have suffered 10 years of a real-terms pay cut under Conservative Governments. I hope the Minister will agree that a significant pay rise would finally reflect and respect the value we place in their work. Throughout the pandemic, the Government have wasted billions on failed track and trace and given hundreds of millions to their friends and donors in contracts for faulty PPE. If they can do that, there is no reason why a decent pay rise cannot be funded for people who put their lives on the line every day throughout this pandemic.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I would like to begin by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) and for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) on securing this debate.
An extra £16 billion for the military, £37 billion for the private Test and Trace system, and billions more in dodgy contracts handed to Tory donors. But for nurses just £3.50 a week. The Prime Minister says it is all we can afford, but the fortunes handed to arms dealers, Serco bosses and the Health and Social Care Secretary’s former neighbour and pub landlord tell us something different. When inflation is factored in, the 1% “pay rise” for NHS workers is really a pay cut—from clapping for carers to cutting their pay. Even for this Government, this is shameful.
While Tory donors have been getting rich off this pandemic, it has been NHS workers getting us through it. On the frontline, nurses, doctors, cleaners, porters and all of our healthcare workers have been truly incredible, battling the virus, working overtime, enduring stress and trauma.
Nearly 1,000 health and social care staff are estimated to have died from the virus, with workers too often not provided with the protective equipment they needed. Nearly half of intensive care staff report symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, severe depression or anxiety. All of this comes after a decade of NHS staff being overworked and underpaid, with nursing vacancies in the midlands alone standing at 7,500 and pay down as much as 30% for some staff. Now, according to research, two in three nurses have to work overtime to pay the bills, and reports of nurses forced to rely on food banks are far from uncommon.
Tory Ministers call them heroes. They clapped for them while cameras were watching, but now they think they can get away with a cut in their pay. They pit NHS workers against other workers, saying that if one group has had their pay frozen, it is not fair for another group to have their pay raised. They say that if private sector workers are losing their jobs, others should make sacrifices, too. It is classic divide-and-rule tactics. It is an attempt to turn working people against each other, leaving all of us worse off, while their donors and wealthy mates laugh all the way to the bank.
Here is an alternative plan: instead of spending billions more on new weapons of war or giving more fortunes to private Test and Trace consultants, we could give NHS workers the pay rise they deserve—15% to make up for a decade of lost pay. Instead of letting tax dodging run riot and corporate greed dominate, we could bring in a new windfall tax to make the likes of Amazon pay their fair share and to raise the pay of all our key workers, public and private sector alike. NHS workers are always there for us. Now it is our turn to stand with them.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing this important debate. As a former NHS worker and a current member of the Select Committee on Health and Social Care, it is undeniable that I feel passionately about this issue. I know that my constituents in Coventry North West share my strength of feeling towards this subject, as expressed by the hundreds of emails I have received and the thousands of rainbows still dotted in the windows of homes across Coventry.
The last year as been the toughest year in the NHS’s 72-year history. NHS workers have been pushed to the limit and stretched beyond our wildest imagination. They have worked 1 million hours of unpaid overtime and sacrificed more than should ever have been asked of them. They have done this to keep us, the public, safe. In the last year, at least 230 NHS workers have tragically paid the ultimate sacrifice and lost their lives to covid while serving others. My thoughts are with their families, their communities and the colleagues they have left behind.
After a year of intense sacrifices and unprecedented pressures, it is clear that NHS workers deserve better than the real-terms pay cut proposed. Indeed, our NHS heroes deserve a pay rise. The nation, including members of this Government, clapped on their doorsteps every Thursday to applaud the work of our NHS covid frontline workers. As has been touched on today, however, claps will not pay NHS workers’ rent or bills and cannot be exchanged for weekly food shops.
It must also be emphasised that the ramifications of this pay cut are not just confined to the household finances of our NHS workers. It will exert further pressures on our local high streets at an already precarious time for our local and regional economies. A proper pay rise for the staff of University Hospital Coventry would feed directly into the shops and businesses in my constituency. I have heard at first hand from small business owners that high streets such as Jardine Crescent, Holbrook Lane and Wolseley Avenue would warmly welcome the rise in local spending power to ameliorate the conditions of the last year.
In addition to the impact on our local high streets, I feel compelled to touch on the staff vacancies crisis that our NHS faces. It is alarming but unsurprising that the mental and physical toll of being overworked and underpaid is driving too many NHS workers out of the profession. The extent of this crisis is vast, with an estimated 100,000 staff vacancies, and it is clear that we must act quickly to retain current NHS workers and recruit many more to reduce the significant over-reliance on expensive bank and agency workers. No clearer message can be sent to current and prospective NHS workers about their value than fair remuneration.
Finally, I want to highlight the inequalities that this pay cut will exacerbate. The effect of the pay cut will be heavily skewed against women. Some 76% of workers—nearly 1 million NHS staff—affected by this Government pay cut are women. Surely this is not the message we want to send about the worth that our society places on the work of women. A pay rise will not begin to cover the personal sacrifices made by NHS workers while caring for strangers at a time of need. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that NHS key workers are paid fairly.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), who secured and opened this debate so eloquently.
As we know and has been said before, this week marks the first anniversary of the beginning of lockdown. This anniversary gives us all the chance to reflect on the past year and the tragedy and hardship that we have all experienced. We have had an opportunity to remember all those who have lost their lives due to the virus and to recognise the grief of their families and friends.
This year has thrown up unprecedented challenges to us all, with people across these islands facing financial hardship, mental health struggles and tragic loss. However, it has been the NHS staff who have seen the very worst of the pandemic. I pay tribute to the hard work and sheer dedication of NHS staff across Scotland and, indeed, the rest of the UK who have worked tirelessly during the pandemic. They include the nurses at Glasgow Royal Infirmary, the doctors at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, the caterers at the New Victoria Hospital, the auxiliaries at Stobhill Hospital, and the cleaners at Lightburn Hospital. Every single one of them has put in a shift and deserves our thanks and recognition.
I also thank all those working in vaccination centres across Scotland, including the armed forces, who have been utterly invaluable. The vaccination numbers have been truly astonishing, with 2,214,672 first doses administered in Scotland as of yesterday. I particularly want to thank the staff working in the six vaccination centres across Glasgow, including in my own constituency at Easterhouse. After a difficult year, we can see light at the end of this tunnel. It is clear today that we are all thankful for the work of NHS staff during this crisis, but, as many Members have said, warm words alone are not enough.
I have sat here today and listened to Members from different parts of the room—I would not say all parts of the House, given that there is only one Conservative Member here—the Minister—and I remain to be convinced about how much attention she has paid to the debate. All Members have lavished praise on the NHS and its staff. The Prime Minister stood outside 10 Downing Street and clapped for the NHS, but, as has also been said, nurses and doctors cannot be paid in rounds of applause. The NHS has faced a once-in-a-lifetime event. Its staff have risked their lives facing a previously unknown disease and now the UK Government’s proposed financial recognition falls way short of what is acceptable.
We know that this UK Government have been incompetent throughout the pandemic—not delivering on vital PPE, handing out contracts to friends and Tory donors, producing a test-and-trace system that has proven ineffective, locking down too late and endangering too many people’s lives. Now, with the vaccination programme in full swing and the UK Government publishing their road map out of lockdown, it seems that they have all forgotten about the NHS staff who work every day to save lives.
We in the SNP are proud of our record on NHS pay. Staff receive the most favourable pay settlement anywhere in the UK. Moreover, Scottish nurses are the best paid in the UK. To give an example, the salary of a band 5 nurse at the top of their pay scale is currently 3.38% higher than the English equivalent, and social care staff in Scotland are already paid better than those in England and Wales, but we have not stopped there. In Scotland, the SNP Government have delivered a £500 bonus—a thank-you payment—to NHS staff after an unprecedented year treating and responding to covid-19.
The £500 payment is for Scotland’s NHS and social care workers employed during the pandemic. It includes staff who have had to shield or have since retired and includes final-year nursing students who have worked on temporary contracts during the pandemic. The Scottish Government have repeatedly called on the British Government to allow the payment to be exempt from income tax. Sadly, the ability to exempt the bonus in this way is not within the current gift or the current powers of the Scottish Government.
We in the SNP just want a simple payment of £500 to go to all NHS staff in Scotland, to reward them for their unprecedented work during the pandemic. The best and most straightforward way of doing that is by exempting the payments from income tax and national insurance. I again call on the UK Government to step up and ensure that that £500 is exempt from income tax and national insurance. The UK Government have to put their money where their mouth is and truly recognise the sacrifice of our NHS staff, not just with claps, but with cash.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing this important and heavily subscribed debate today. She gave an excellent, impassioned introduction. She summed the issue up very well when she said that NHS staff are being asked to do more for less. That really does sum up the Government’s approach to a lot of things: more for less.
I thank all other hon. Members for their contributions today. There are too many to mention individually, but I will pick out one or two during my speech. I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) for co-sponsoring the debate.
Every Member spoke with great passion, sincerity and knowledge about why the Government’s approach to the NHS pay deal is flawed. It is disrespectful and ultimately self-defeating. Members who spoke showed clear support for and appreciation of the NHS workforce. Every single Member had that in common. They also have in common that they are all from Opposition parties. Not one Back-Bench Tory MP has come today to defend their party’s policy—not one. Worse still, not one has come to defend the NHS workforce. That says it all, doesn’t it?
I am sure we all agree, certainly among Opposition Members, that our amazing NHS staff have been the ones who have kept this country going during the pandemic, who have kept us safe and who have looked after our loved ones. They have been on the frontline looking after not just the 450,000-plus people who have been hospitalised with coronavirus, but everyone else who has needed medical attention, while at the same time putting their own lives on the line. Our NHS staff are feeling the strain. Do not forget that we entered the pandemic with a record 100,000 vacancies in the NHS, and with a health workforce smaller than many other countries, meaning that our NHS staff have worked longer and harder than others during the covid crisis.
For many people, the added pressure has had a profound impact on their psychological wellbeing. Almost half of NHS staff in England have reported feeling unwell from work-related stress—the highest rate recorded in the past five years—and NHS staff took 3.5 million sick days off between March and October last year due to mental health issues. The latest figures from the NHS staff survey, published this month, show that 300,000 staff have worked unpaid hours, and that almost 13,000 more staff reported working unpaid overtime compared with 2019, suggesting that over 1 million hours of unpaid overtime have been worked during this pandemic. It is little wonder that NHS staff are exhausted and that they are leaving.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree made a strong case that pay increases can have a positive effect on retention levels, which is something that urgently needs addressing. The Minister will know all about the shocking number of healthcare staff who have left their NHS roles for better pay conditions and work-life balance in recent years, because she has seen the data—it is the Government’s own data that say this. She will be well aware that over the last year, 31,000 nurses and health visitors left the NHS—an increase of 50% since 2010-11.
Justin Madders
I am sorry, but I will not have time to take any interventions.
The Minister will know that since 2010-11, there has been a 181% increase in nurses and health visitors resigning due to their work-life balance, and an 82% increase in the number leaving for health reasons. She will be aware that there has been a 57% increase in resignations since that time because people found a better reward package elsewhere.
Years of pay freezes, record vacancies and relentless pressure have had a devastating effect on our NHS workforce. Not surprisingly, as a last resort, hard-pressed staff are voting with their feet. That should ring alarm bells loud and clear that Ministers are not getting things right, that they need to change course and that they need to start listening to the NHS workforce. It is simply unacceptable that instead of giving our NHS staff the pay rise that they were promised, the Government are recommending that they should receive just 1% this year, an amount that the Government are fully aware is actually a real-terms pay cut. NHS staff are not being properly rewarded, as the Secretary of State said they would be. That is not what is set out in the legislation passed by this House, which the Government voted for in the NHS long-term plan.
As the Minister knows, the plan set out a 2.1% pay increase for all NHS staff. The head of NHS England, Sir Simon Stevens, has confirmed that the NHS did indeed budget for that 2.1% pay rise, so the Government have broken their promise. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that inflation will rise by 1.5% this year, so instead of a pay rise that was budgeted for and indeed voted for, NHS staff will see a real-term pay cut of hundreds of pounds. Experienced nurses will see a paltry £3.50 per week extra in their pay packet, which is just 50p a day. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) told of a healthcare worker who will get 9p an hour extra.
Counting for inflation since the Conservative party took power in 2010, some NHS workers have seen their pay slashed by thousands of pounds a year. The starting salary for nurses, physiotherapists, radiographers and numerous other NHS roles has seen a real-terms pay cut of £841 per year, and average salaries have reduced in real terms by around £2,379. That is not being properly rewarded; it is not being rewarded at all. It is not good enough for those who have performed heroically over the last year to be rewarded in this way. For many, a real-terms pay cut will be the last straw. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) made the point that we are in an international market for healthcare staff and cannot afford to be complacent in such matters.
It could not be clearer that we need investment in our workforce. Waiting lists have spiralled out of control, and we will need the staff more than ever. The Government urgently need to reconsider their approach; otherwise, the exodus that we are seeing at the moment will become a flood. Hon. Members, the public, UNISON, other unions, the NHS Confederation and other bodies are all urging the Government to reconsider their 1% pay rise proposal, so what is stopping them? It cannot be a lack of money, because, as we have heard, £37 billion can be found for Test and Trace, millions can be spent on unusable PPE, and we have had £2.6 million for the Prime Minister’s new media centre. It is a political choice, and it is a choice that cannot be defended. Indeed, as we see today, it seems that no Conservative Back Benchers want to defend it.
I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the anger the proposals have generated, but let me read out a few quotes from bodies representing the workforce so that she can see the strength of feeling. The British Medical Association said it is a
“total dereliction of the Government’s moral duty”
and a kick in the teeth. The Royal College of Nursing said:
“This is pitiful and bitterly disappointing”
and “dangerously out of touch”. Unison said it is the “worst kind of insult” and “some kind of joke.” The TUC said it is
“a hammer blow to staff morale”
and Unite described it as “unyielding contempt”. So I do not think there is any mistaking how NHS workers feel.
That mood is matched by the public, who overwhelmingly oppose the Government’s position. A poll showed that 83% of the public and 78% of Conservative voters think the Government should increase their pay offer. For a Government who routinely pit people against one another when it comes to pay, that must surely tell them they are on the wrong side of the argument. If it does not, they must surely know they should think again when the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), calls their offer a “miscalculation”. As understatements go, that is right up there. We do not know whether that view is widespread on the Tory Benches, because no Conservative Member is here to tell us what their view is. I am not surprised that the Prime Minister wants to avoid putting the proposals to a vote, because how could any Conservative Member look their constituents who work for the NHS in the eye if they vote for that? I do not know.
It should not have come to this. The Government really need to think again. The whole country is watching and waiting for them to do the right thing. It is not enough to say, “Wait for the pay review body” without giving a guarantee that, should the pay review body recommend a real-terms pay rise, that will be honoured by the Government. If the Minister confirms at least that today, that would be a start.
After the last year, we should not have to fight a battle to ask the Government to consider more than a 1% pay rise. It says everything about how little value those efforts over the last year have been appreciated. Our NHS staff deserve more than that. They deserve an agreed fair and sustainable pay settlement. Ministers should admit their mistakes and undertake to agree a multi-year pay deal with NHS staff. In starting talks, they should take the pay cut off the table and not set a ceiling. Time and again, the Prime Minister said that the NHS would not pay the price for the pandemic. The Chancellor promised that the NHS would get whatever it needed. It is time to put those words into action. It is time to ditch the empty promises and gestures. It is time to do the right thing.
We stayed at home to protect the NHS. We clapped for our carers during the pandemic, and we on the Opposition side meant it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree said, claps and smiles do not pay the bills. That is why the Opposition will not rest until our brave NHS staff get fair pay and the long-term settlement that they truly and honestly deserve.
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing the debate on this important issue and giving me the opportunity to talk about our NHS staff. I come from a family of doctors and nurses, and before I became an MP I spent years working in hospitals and other NHS organisations, particularly to make the NHS a better place to work, because NHS staff are our health system’s greatest asset. In normal times, they go the extra mile, but in the pandemic they have done so time and again.
I welcome many of the points made by hon. Members this morning. Many have talked about the huge sacrifices that staff have made during the pandemic—not only them, but their families. Some, for instance, moved out of their family home to ensure they did not bring coronavirus home with them.
Colleagues have talked about not only nurses but other members of the healthcare workforce, including healthcare assistants, who are often overlooked in these conversations but are a vital part of our health service.
Some Members have talked about vacancies in the NHS workforce, of which I am well aware, and I will provide some reassurance on that in my remarks. Hon. Members have talked about PPE, but I do not see it as a choice between paying the NHS workforce and providing PPE—we must do both. PPE is not a choice; it is essential to protect those working in the NHS, and to me, it is non-negotiable. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), spoke about the need to invest in our workforce. I wholeheartedly agree with that, and the Government are doing so.
As I said, NHS staff are the NHS’s greatest asset. In fact, the NHS is, in essence, its people. The Government are determined to ensure that the NHS can retain and recruit the staff it needs. Over the last few years, the have worked with trade unions to deliver multi-year pay and contract-reform deals for more than a million of our NHS staff. Over the last three years, nurses specifically have seen their starting salaries increase by more than 12%. We have increased the lowest starting salary in the NHS by more than 60%.
We all know that our NHS staff work around the clock to provide care. That is why, on top of the basic salary, NHS staff earn premium rates of pay for working at night and over the weekend, and for agreed overtime. That increases individual pay by around £4,000 on average. On top of that, the NHS reward rightly includes benefits that go beyond the statutory minimum on holidays, sick pay and pensions.
We have also invested in our junior doctors, recognising the huge contribution that they make to the NHS. The deal that we have agreed with the British Medical Association improves junior doctors’ working lives, protecting rest requirements and reducing the number of consecutive shifts worked. By the end of that deal, junior doctor pay scales will have increased by at least 8.2%, and around one in eight junior doctors will receive more as they reach a new higher pay point to reflect their level of responsibility. For our nurses and non-medical staff, this is the final year of the multi-year “Agenda for Change” deal. We have asked the independent pay review bodies to make recommendations on the pay of our NHS staff for 2021-22.
As the Government have set out, the coronavirus pandemic has placed a huge strain on public finances, and the economic outlook remains uncertain. The Government’s written evidence to the independent pay review bodies set out that, in settling the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS budgets, the Government anticipated a headline pay award of 1% for NHS staff. That compares with the pay freeze for the wider public sector and, as we all know, with the context of many people facing unemployment and pay cuts in many parts of our economy.
David Linden
The Minister is setting out the bleak fiscal picture for the Government and the tough financial choices that have to be made. Will she explain, then, why they have seen fit to invest in more nuclear warheads but not in pay for NHS staff?
Helen Whately
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that although the Government have to make some difficult decisions, various things are non-negotiable. One of those things is ensuring that the NHS is there for all our constituents who need it, and another thing is ensuring that we have the defence that we need to protect people from threats from overseas.
Let me return to the matter in hand and set out a bit more about the process that we are going through on NHS pay. As I mentioned, the evidence that we recently submitted to the NHS pay review covered a wide range of data that was relevant to the decisions that that pay review body will make. The pay review bodies themselves are independent advisory bodies made up of industry experts. Their recommendations are based on a comprehensive assessment of evidence from a range of stakeholders, including trade unions. The wide range of factors that they will consider includes the cost of living, recruitment and retention in the NHS, affordability and value for money for the taxpayer, and comparisons with wider public and private sector earnings.
As the pay review bodies are independent, I cannot, and would not wish to, pre-empt their recommendations. We have asked the NHS pay review body, and the review body for doctors and dentists, to report later in the spring, and we will carefully consider their recommendations when we receive them.
Justin Madders
The Minister is setting out the pay review process, but it is also the case that she voted for a 2.1% pay increase only last year. Why has that changed?
Helen Whately
I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has brought this point up. There have been no changes to the 2.1%. I specifically looked into that, and we are absolutely consistent—the 2.1% in the long-term plan will be invested in the workforce as planned. That 2.1% includes the funding not only for the pay agreements that we will reach through this process, but for existing pay deals and further workforce development, so we will be standing by that 2.1%.
As would be expected, I have had many conversations with NHS staff, from porters to healthcare assistants, nurses, allied healthcare professionals, junior doctors and consultants, both during the pandemic and for many years before. I have asked many times what would help; what do staff most want? Pay is rarely mentioned in those conversations—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) may laugh, but I am describing the many conversations I have had over many years with NHS staff, including during the pandemic. What is most often mentioned to me is that staff want more colleagues. They want more staff working alongside them so that they can have more time to give patients the care that they want to provide.
Helen Whately
I will make some progress, as time is limited. Staff have told me many times that they want to feel genuinely supported and valued in their work. Someone said that one of the upsides of the pandemic is that when a colleague asks them how they are, they feel that the question is actually a meaningful one at the moment. If they say, “No, I’m not okay”, it has led to a conversation in which they have talked about what would help. I would like to see that continued in easier times.
Staff told me many times that they would like more autonomy in their jobs, and to be able to really make a difference and make improvements in the area they work in. Most recently, staff told me how much they want to be able to take time off, to have some time to spend with their families and time to recover and recuperate from the stresses and strains of the pandemic. I am determined that we shall deliver all those things for our NHS workforce.
Throughout the pandemic, I have worked with NHS England to make sure that all possible support is in place for staff. That includes practical support, like hot food and drinks and the free parking that has been much talked about; and psychological support: mental health support, “wobble rooms”—which I have spoken to staff about and they value them—dedicated support lines and helplines, and access to specialist support through new mental health and wellbeing hubs. As set out in the people plan, we are working with the whole NHS to build a more supportive, compassionate and inclusive culture. A culture in which those who care are cared for in turn.
On the first of the asks that I mentioned, that NHS staff want more colleagues, we are making real progress. In the NHS there are now over 6,500 more doctors, almost 10,600 more nurses and over 18,700 more health support workers compared with a year ago, and we are well on our way to delivering 50,000 more nurses for the NHS by the end of this Parliament.
We estimate that there are 70,000 nurses and midwives in training at the moment, and that includes 29,740 students who began nursing and midwifery courses this academic year. That is an increase of 26% from last year. Forty-eight thousand students have applied to start nursing and midwifery courses later in the year. That is an increase of over a third compared with the number of applicants at the same time last year, so I can assure hon. Members that the supply of people training and coming forward to train to work in the NHS is strong.
Vacancies in the NHS—indeed, there are vacancies, but they are decreasing—have fallen by over 11,000 since last year. There are 2,500 fewer nursing and midwifery vacancies and 1,800 fewer doctor vacancies.
NHS and social care staff do a fantastic job, and they continue to go the extra mile time and again, especially during the pandemic. We must recognise their skill and dedication and make sure the rewards of work in the NHS support the recruitment and retention of the workforce our health service needs. That is why we have the independent pay review bodies. They will properly assess all the evidence, and the Government will consider their recommendations and respond in due course.
Those of us who have spoken today may disagree about many things, but we all care deeply about our NHS and our NHS staff. I thank all the hon. Members who spoke today for showing their support.
Paula Barker
I thank all the hon. Members who spoke today and all the hon. Members who applied to speak but were unable to do so because the debate was over-subscribed. I hope today’s debate will go some way towards demonstrating to our incredible NHS workers that they are valued by some people in this place.
I am astounded that the Minister has come here today to try to defend what is, frankly, indefensible. I extend an invitation to the Minister to meet the NHS staff that I speak to, because they will tell her that what they need and want is a pay rise.
I am horrified to hear that some things are non-negotiable, yet NHS staff do not seem to fall into that category. I assure every worker who has held the hand of someone in their last moments, who has comforted family members who were unable to be with their loved ones at the end or who is currently vaccinating people to ensure that the spread of this virus comes to an end, that I, and my colleagues on the Opposition Benches, will continue to fight for the pay rise they deserve, and the dignity that they should be afforded, because that is what we believe is non-negotiable.
The Minister’s Government has the power to do the right thing. They do not have to wait for the pay review body to tell them what the majority of people in this country already know. If there are billions of pounds for Serco’s failed Test and Trace and for failed PPE contracts, there is money to reward those who have personally given so much during the pandemic. Our NHS staff must be awarded a decent pay rise because nothing less will do.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered NHS pay.
Luton Airport Expansion
(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
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been a few changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. I remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to anyone else on the call and us in the Boothroyd Room. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall, except when speaking.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the planned expansion of Luton Airport.
It is a real privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I am pleased to have secured this debate and to welcome the hon. Members for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) and for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who are keen to speak. I will keep my remarks to around 10 minutes, so that others can contribute.
Let me start with the history and background. Luton airport is poorly sited on top of a hill, with no direct access by mainline trains. Although the M1 is close by, there are very poor east-west transport links. The passenger transport modality still favours cars and taxis.
My constituency of St Albans lies some distance to the south of Luton airport. Until the latter part of the last decade, the existence of the airport was of little consequence to the residents of St Albans. However, two main changes have taken place in that time, causing significant disruption to residents of the city and the surrounding towns and villages. First, in the 10 years to 2019, passenger numbers have doubled from little more than 9 million to a record 19 million in 2019. That has resulted in a 50% increase in aircraft movements over the same period. Secondly, the ever-increasing number of flights arriving and departing the airport are being concentrated in a very narrow corridor between St Albans and Harpenden. The area navigation, or RNAV, system, introduced in 2015, has exacerbated the misery of my constituents by directing planes to fly over the same homes and communities over and over again.
Let me start with aircraft noise. It will come as no surprise that the most pressing concern of my constituents is the noise from those flights. For many, the noise disrupts their peace and quiet and their sleep and rest, and is a major distraction from work and recreation. There is also increasing evidence that this noise can have a profound effect on physical and mental health. A study carried out by Queen Mary University of London for the Airports Commission in 2015 identified increased incidences of heart disease, stroke, obesity and diabetes in the areas studied, as well as negative effects on psychological health and overall wellbeing. More research is needed, but I raise that study to shine a spotlight on how seriously we must take all the legitimate complaints of local residents.
The next issue is expansion and consultation. Luton set out a very aggressive growth plan a decade ago. It was egged on by the Department for Transport’s aviation policy framework of 2013, which encouraged airports such as Luton to make best use of their existing capacity. That led to a free-for-all for regional airports, squeezing in as much traffic as possible into often inappropriate locations. Luton airport and its owners, Luton Borough Council, appear during that period to have ignored the expectation in the framework that
“growth in aviation should ensure that benefits are shared between the aviation industry and local communities.”
When the last major expansion application was approved in 2012, it was to double passenger capacity from 9 million to 18 million. At that time, the growth was envisaged to be over a period of 15 years to 2028 but, pre-pandemic, that capacity had already been maxed out. The approval went hand in hand with noise control limits, to be achieved by the modernisation of the operating fleet over that period. Community campaigning groups such as St Albans Quieter Skies and the Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise were both given assurances by the operators that expansion plans were to be mitigated by that revolutionary technology. They understood that as the skies got busier they would also become quieter.
In fact, those groups tell me that the opposite has happened. The uncontrolled growth of operations means that the 2028 limits were not only reached but exceeded in 2019. The huge spike in passenger numbers has meant greater numbers of aircraft, and even larger, noisier ones. That has resulted in the noise control limit being breached with increasing severity in 2017, 2018 and a record-busting 2019, the same year in which the number of permitted passengers was also breached. Trust from community groups and residents has therefore completely broken down. They describe how they have been fobbed off with talk of the introduction of quieter planes, and asked to ignore real-world data showing that they are at best only marginally quieter than the ones they replaced. What measures will the Minister take to compel Luton to keep its promises on real, meaningful noise mitigation? What can he do to speed up the much needed improvements to already congested airspace, to reduce the noise impact on Hertfordshire residents?
I will turn now to the question of the climate emergency, and emissions. The newer aircraft were supposed to be quieter, but there was also a requirement that they would be less polluting. Any further expansion to the airport must take into account the devastating impact of increased air traffic on climate change and the grave health consequences of further air pollution for neighbouring districts. Once again, community groups such as LADACAN and STAQS have pressed Luton airport on what progress is being made on reducing emissions from its operations; once again they are being given the runaround. The operators are keen to espouse the improvements that they are making to airport operations, but the airport buildings account for only 3% of emissions. The overwhelming majority of carbon emissions are from the aircraft themselves, and the surface transport to get to the planes—cars dropping off and picking up passengers. The airport tells me that those 97% of emissions are out of its control. What can the Minister do to reconcile the further expansion of operations at Luton with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee that
“demand cannot continue to grow unfettered”?
Will he commit to making sure that there is no further growth in capacity at all until the promised noise reductions are delivered and aircraft have switched to sustainable aviation fuel?
Finally, I want to touch on a real or perceived conflict of interest. We have been told that the rapid growth to 2019 was unprecedented and unexpected. We are apparently expected to ignore the incentivisation deal by Luton Borough Council, the owner of the airport, which encouraged airport operators and their airlines to deliver consistent year-on-year growth. All the while, I and my constituents look on as Luton Borough Council spends tens of millions of pounds preparing an application for a development control order to more than double capacity—again—to 32 million passengers per annum. At the heart of those plans is a complicated arrangement whereby Luton Borough Council owns the airport but the airport supposedly has an arm’s length company running it, and contracts an apparently independent operator. Somehow we are expected to believe that the owner of the airport, Luton Borough Council, has no input into the strategy of continued expansion.
The reality, as I have demonstrated, is that the authority is more than happy to incentivise growth at its airport. That is where the whole arrangement becomes most troubling. The authority charged with making impartial judgments on planning and enforcement matters at the airport stands to lose the most from rejecting applications for expansion, and from enforcement. There is understandable concern that although noise control limits were breached over the three years to 2019 no apparent enforcement action has been taken by the planning authority to remedy the situation in the same period. Instead, we see the submission of a further planning application to regularise the breaches to make the problem go away.
I do not accuse the local authority of any legal or procedural impropriety, but it is very difficult for a casual observer to be persuaded that there is no predisposition for Luton Borough Council to be in favour of expansion. It is well documented that the airport is an enterprise that keeps the council solvent; in fact, there have been accusations that it is too reliant on it as an income stream.
When the expansion of the airport was last debated in this place just over three years ago, it was in the context of the medium to long-term proposal to increase the passenger limit at Luton to 32 million. I was encouraged by the Minister who responded to that debate, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who said that the Government would take the decision about expansion out of the hands of the local authority as a nationally significant infrastructure application.
Today, I take the opportunity to ask the Minister if he will ensure that the decision on the current planning application, which would increase the passenger limit to 90 million, is called in by the Secretary of State. That is absolutely critical to restore the trust of our local communities; a first step on that journey would be to make sure that the decision is not only impartial but seen to be impartial.
In conclusion, I accept that this debate takes place in the shadow of the pandemic. Luton, like other airports, has seen an extraordinary reduction in the demand for flights as we have faced rolling lockdowns and indeterminate travel restrictions. However, the airport tells me that it wants to ramp back up as soon as it can. That is all the more reason to put the brakes on these irresponsible expansion plans.
The airport operators have voiced concern that there will be an oversupply of capacity at many airports for some time as we recover from covid. I would like to ask the Minister whether the situation presents a unique opportunity to re-evaluate Luton’s suitability as a high-capacity air hub in light of the airspace constraints, its poor location and its highly irregular ownership structure.
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
For a brief contribution, I call Richard Fuller.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Thank you very much indeed for calling me, Mr Hosie, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I also thank the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), first for permitting me to speak in this debate, but more importantly for her consistent campaigning against the further expansion of Luton airport. She is right to call out Luton airport for its excessive and rapid growth and consistent breaches of noise limitations, and because expansion is inconsistent with our environmental goals and our pathway to net zero. Minister, the current application for further expansion of Luton airport is an egregious example of a disregard of the principles of net zero, and that alone is sufficient reason for the Government to oppose it.
The other issue that she rightly mentioned is the conflict of interest between Luton Borough Council—Luton’s unitary council—and the airport expansion. As the Minister knows, it is a great concern for local residents in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire that somehow Luton’s local authority has a major conflict of interest and it is right and responsible for the Minister to act. In fact, the Minister has an opportunity to act. He has an opportunity to stop the consultation on air flight pathways between Luton and Stansted. That would give him further time to consider what should happen. As the hon. Member for St Albans said, he can call in this expansion plan and provide confidence to residents in Bedfordshire that due diligence and a proper appraisal of it will be undertaken.
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
For an equally brief contribution, I call Bim Afolami.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Hosie; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate and I thank the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) for giving me that opportunity.
Quite simply, there should not be any further expansion of Luton airport—no ifs, no buts. It is in the wrong place to have a larger airport. As has been outlined by both the hon. Member for St Albans and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), the airport has consistently shown disregard for local residents and their views. In particular, there is a conflict between Luton Borough Council’s largely financial interests and its need for Luton airport to grow and grow for financial reasons, and the interests of local residents in my constituency, and indeed those in many other surrounding constituencies in Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire.
This process should not go on any longer. I urge the Minister to outline how we can stop any further expansion. In addition, I would welcome an update on the flight path reorganisation work being done over the coming years, not just from Stansted but from all the different airports in the south-east, because that will significantly impact the lives of my residents.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) on securing this important debate on Luton airport expansion. I recognise the importance of this matter to her constituents, and to those of my hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) and for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). I know it matters a great deal to them and I welcome the chance to respond on behalf of the Government.
For context, the UK enjoys one of the best connected, best value and safest aviation industry of anywhere in the world, and that strong industry is vital as we build a truly global Britain and level up the country. It is important to recognise at the outset the great social and economic benefits that the growth of the aviation sector has brought. Airports serve local communities, support thousands of jobs, and connect places and people across our Union and the world. Before the pandemic, the sector contributed at least £22 billion to GDP each year and supported approximately half a million jobs in the UK.
Turning specifically to Luton airport itself, the Government welcomes the ambition of airports to provide better facilities and choice for passengers, and there has been significant investment in the terminal, airside and surface. I look forward to the opening of the Luton DART, or direct air-rail transit, in 2022. That £225 million infrastructure will support more sustainable travel to the airport. Pre-covid, Luton airport provided impressive connectivity with 128 routes serving destinations across Europe, the middle east and north Africa, illustrating the importance of global travel and spreading global understanding. Luton airport is a key employer in the local area, supporting around 30,000 jobs in 2019, and contributing £1.5 billion to the UK economy and £500 million to the local economy surrounding the airport.
The Government are supportive of airports making the best use of their existing facilities. However, we recognise that the operation and development of airports can have negative, as well as positive, impacts for local communities. In particular, I have listened to the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin and Harpenden and for North East Bedfordshire. They made excellent points in their speeches and I will continue to consider them in the weeks and months ahead. I look forward to working with them.
The Government’s position is that proposals for development should be judged by the relevant planning authority, taking careful account of all relevant considerations, particularly economic and environmental impacts, and proposed mitigations. Specifically on noise, the Government’s aim is that any management strategies and necessary mitigation are developed and decided on locally, wherever possible. The Government’s involvement should be where there are strategic decisions to be made, such as the national night flight policy currently being consulted on.
I am aware that Luton’s proposed application for a development consent order would involve construction of a new second terminal to the north of the runway. Local people have had the opportunity to consider and comment on that proposal, as part of the statutory consultation undertaken by Luton. That consultation ran between October and December 2019 and asked for feedback on all aspects of the proposal, including the layout, surface access, environmental mitigation, land assembly and compensation. I welcome the ambition and the proposed further investment from Luton, but, as the final decision on Luton’s proposed development consent order rests with the Secretary of State for Transport, I hope hon. Members will understand that it is not appropriate for me to comment any further at this stage.
Turning to airspace, I am aware of the proposed new Luton airborne holding stack and the arrival arrangements. I am also aware of the concerns about increased overflight and noise in those communities that may be affected. That has been mentioned by all hon. Members today. I am conscious that some of that arises out of the earlier performance-based navigation changes, which is the corridor to which the hon. Member for St Albans refers.
The Civil Aviation Authority is the consenting authority for airspace changes. It is important to distinguish between the planning process with regards to land, and the airspace changes that are linked, of course, but are separate from the planning process. None the less, local authorities have the opportunity to consider and comment on proposed changes that could affect them. The Air Navigation Guidance 2017, which was itself subject to a major public consultation in early 2017, is embedded in the Civil Aviation Authority’s CAP1616 process. It is relatively new and is just beginning to take effect, but it requires airspace change sponsors to undertake air pollution and noise impact assessments of their proposals. It requires airspace sponsors to actively engage and consult with key stakeholders, including communities, on their proposals.
When determining those proposals, the CAA will consider the environmental benefits, the operational requirements and the impact on communities. The CAA will also consider how the sponsors have reacted to the consultation feedback that they have received. We will expect a proposal to be submitted to the CAA over the summer. I hope hon. Members will understand that, given the potential for Ministers to call in the airspace change proposal, I am unable to make any further comments on Luton’s specific proposal.
I turn to climate change, which has quite rightly been raised by all hon. Members who spoke today. The Government of course recognise that the fight against climate change is the greatest and most pressing of the challenges facing our modern world. All hon. Members will know that the UK was the first major economy to pass laws to end our contribution to climate change by 2050. We will be setting out ambitious plans in the run-up to COP26 this year. The jets that we see today are approximately twice as efficient and half as polluting, not to mention much quieter, than the ones that looked similar but were flying 20 years ago. However, we know that more can be done. The Government’s starting point is that emissions, not aviation—emissions, not flights—are the problem.
We are taking decisive action in establishing, for example, the Jet Zero Council. The council, whose plenary met again last week, is a partnership between industry and the Government, with the aim of delivering zero emission transatlantic flights within a generation. It is focused on developing UK capabilities to deliver both net zero and zero emission commercial flight. That includes considering how to develop and industrialise clean aviation and aerospace technologies, establishing UK production facilities for sustainable aviation fuels and developing a co-ordinated approach to the policy and regulatory framework that is needed to deliver net zero by 2050.
We are the first major economy in the world to pass laws to end our contribution to global warming by 2050. We have recently launched the green fuels, green skies competition, which is a £15 million funding programme to support the development of first-of-its-kind production plants, with the aim of producing sustainable aviation fuel plants at scale in the UK. That builds on the success of the earlier future fuels for flight and freight competition. In addition, £3 million will be used to establish a sustainable aviation fuel clearing house, alongside the commitment to consult on a SAF blending mandate later this year.
I am keen to stress that the Government recognise that we cannot act in isolation. Aviation emissions are an inherently global issue. For a country where more than 90% of those emissions originate from international flights, co-ordinated global action is especially important if we are effectively to tackle the sector’s climate impact. The UK continues to take a leading role in the work of ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, to reduce emissions from international aviation. We are determined to see ICAO’s carbon offsetting and reduction scheme for international aviation succeed. The UK volunteered to take part in that scheme from the start. We continue to advocate for increased environmental integrity within CORSIA.
Although airports are a key part of our commitment to global connectivity, we are also a Government who are committed to a greener future. We take our commitments on the environment, clean air and reducing carbon emissions very seriously, and the expansion of any airport must always meet our climate change obligations. In the coming months, the Department will be consulting on a net zero aviation strategy that will set out the steps we will take to achieve net zero ambitions by 2050, and I warmly welcome contributions from all hon. Members present and their constituents as part of that consultation.
In conclusion, the Government are committed to a world-leading aviation sector. We are also committed to ensuring the sector can grow in a sustainable way, and I look forward to discussing that further in the weeks and months ahead.
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
As this is a half-hour debate, there is no winding up or summing up.
Question put and agreed to.
STEM Subjects: Science and Discovery Centres
(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
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practices to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate, and there will be suspensions between each debate.
I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of the debates in Westminster Hall. 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 Clerk’s email address.
Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and, please, when they leave the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall, except of course when people are participating in the debate. Members attending physically who are in the latter stages of the call list may use the seats at the back—I do not think that will be a problem for us in this debate.
I will not need to set a formal time limit for this debate, but I encourage Members to be aware of the call list and the time. I will call Front-Bench speakers from about 3.28 pm. With that, let us move on to the main debate.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Science and Discovery Centres’ support for education in science and careers in STEM subjects.
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mrs Miller, and to have the opportunity to discuss this vital subject.
The debate is timely, as we talked this week about the road map to recovery and our ambitious plans to consolidate the UK’s position as a world leader of science and innovation. I start by thanking the Association for Science and Discovery Centres for its work and support, in particular Dr Penny Fidler, Chas Bishop, Linda Conlon and Professor Alice Roberts for their work and for their discussions with me, and every staff member, volunteer and everyone who teaches and inspires science. I will talk about science’s role in our society before moving on to the role of science and discovery centres and support for our education, workforce and careers in STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths.
Science brings hope and progress towards a better future. Throughout the pandemic, we have seen that the solutions and the way out have been driven by science. Now, we talk about new vaccines and new treatments, built on the back of thousands of hours of research and development and an immense scientific and engineering workforce. Throughout history, the UK has been central to many scientific innovations and discoveries, from Jenner’s work on the smallpox vaccine to Watson, Crick and Rosalind Franklin’s discovery of DNA—the seed that grew to offer hope today in our world-leading genomic sequencing programme surveying new covid variants.
Science also offers hope for the future when we look at the broader challenges that we face. For climate change, we look to science to clean up our pollution and to provide sustainability. For novel threats, we look to science to respond and defend us. For economic pressures and dropping productivity, we look to science to innovate. Even for how we talk in this debate, with Members appearing on Zoom, we look to science to keep us connected.
Scientific method is founded on the principle that one can never prove, only disprove, which means that we always strive for better understanding, ever challenging and changing, and ever improving. Science is a deeply human endeavour that dares, with uncompromising audacity, to hope that nothing is beyond the reach of mankind’s understanding, that knowledge can be gained and the world and the universe understood with the tools of hard work, discipline and careful observation. Each discovery builds on the work of others, all part of this great human endeavour—striving, yearning, learning and progress.
We depend on science for our future prosperity, for our health and wellbeing, and for our very survival. We need a future workforce ready to build on the work that we do today, to make new discoveries, build the machines and buildings, and offer new hope for generations to come. We must invest in science and ensure that it sits centre stage in our national plans, beginning with education and reaching right through our social, cultural and economic policies.
The Government have rightly made science, innovation, research and development the backbone of their plans for economic recovery and sustainability, to turn us into a science superpower—or, I would argue, to return us to being a science superpower. We must celebrate science and we must teach it to our children, but most of all we need to build and consolidate our scientific workforce for the future.
We know that women and people from disadvantaged backgrounds are under-represented in science, technology, engineering and maths—the so-called STEM subjects. Stereotypes and social barriers can mean that many young people are not exposed to science, or consider it alien. Science, maths and engineering can be portrayed as “unfeminine”; sadly, Hansard cannot record me tutting in disgust at the nonsense of that statement, but there we are.
This is where science and discovery centres come in, playing a vital role in breaking down these barriers. Science and discovery centres—community hubs of science engagement—showcase the wonder of science. They take a lead role in our nation’s engagement with science. They are places where people of all ages can learn and discover for themselves what science is, and they also support schools in bringing the science curriculum to life.
Science can often be seen as dry and intellectual, and —dare I say it—geeky, but at its core is the experimentation with and observation of the world and its natural phenomena. Science and discovery centres reintroduce this link and its wonder in a way that is interesting and exciting, but above all accessible. As with all engagement activities, it is the staff and volunteers who are the beating heart of the institutions, transferring their wonder at science on to the next generation. That can come through launching a water rocket, touching a lunar lander or building an earthquake-resistant tower or through something as simple as watching leafcutter ants demolish a plant.
Science and discovery centres allow us all to discover science and nature. Pre-pandemic, over the course of a year they showed almost 10 million school-age children the wonder of science. They inspired disadvantaged and under-represented groups into education, and set the path to careers in STEM subjects.
Of course, science engagement is not limited to science and discovery centres. In my constituency, Royal Holloway, University of London, and Brooklands College do great science and engineering engagement activities respectively, and today I want to celebrate all centres of learning and science engagement. In particular, I call on the Government to support all these centres as we open up again, and as part of our plan for the recovery of education after covid.
The covid pandemic has hit everyone hard, and science and discovery centres, like many other charities, have had to close their doors. Many of their staff have been made redundant. Some centres have shifted their offering online, but it is just not the same as being in the centre and seeing science in action, up close and personal.
We have heard a lot about the impact that the covid pandemic has had on children’s education, and rightly the Department for Education has focused on how we can ensure that our children do not become the covid generation. We have worked very hard over the years to support and broaden access to careers in STEM to disadvantaged groups. The Minister for School Standards has rightly worked hard to increase uptake in STEM subjects at A-level for women. Science and discovery centres are a key part of our educational offering, enriching the school experience and inspiring people to consider the opportunities of a career in science.
I have spoken many times about the pandemic being a pandemic of inequality, as it has accentuated existing health inequalities; those who were already worse off in our society are being hit the hardest and sadly, that is also the case in education. I regularly hear from teachers in my constituency their worries about the differential impact on children, and that those who are already disadvantaged will have the inequalities they experience entrenched.
That situation also affects the enrichment offered by science and discovery centres. With school trips called off and centres closed, teachers have to make careful financial decisions, given the costs of education during the pandemic. Of course those pressures will be highest in deprived areas, where the need for educational enrichment is greatest and where visiting a science and discovery centre could be the spark of wonder that leads someone on to a different path towards a career in science, technology, engineering and maths.
Science and discovery centres have benefited from the main headline financial support schemes, such as furlough, but many of them have missed out on sector-specific support as a result of not being seen as cultural institutions. Consequently, they are really struggling. They need to open their doors again to all of us, but in particular to schoolchildren.
I ask the Minister, who I know is passionate about ensuring equality of opportunity for all and the role of education in achieving that aim, to ensure that in a world of competing pressures the vital work that science and discovery centres do is supported within our plans for the recovery of education.
This debate is very personal to me. As a young boy growing up, I was inspired by the wonder of science by my parents. This was nurtured and reinforced by the trips I took to science museums and nature reserves, many of which would now be seen as science and discovery centres. I try to pass on the wonder of science to my own children, be it through watching tadpoles turn into frogs or seeing dinosaurs and space rockets at the science and discovery centres.
The debate today is a celebration of the amazing work of our science and discovery centres, and all those who inspire a love of science across our communities. It is also a plea to ensure that the current generation of school children do not miss out on these amazing opportunities to discover and explore the possibilities that science offers, to pursue careers in STEM subjects and to be the ones to lead future innovation and provide hope and inspiration for future generations. Every child needs the opportunity to discover science. We cannot let the pandemic extinguish science’s spark of wonder for our next generation.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) on securing this important debate.
The Catalyst Science Discovery Centre in my constituency is a unique hybrid, combining a museum and a science centre. It plays an important role in promoting STEM—the fields of science, technology, engineering and maths—and learning to young people. I will concentrate mainly on that in my speech today, but we also have the brilliant Sci-Tech Daresbury in the borough of Halton as well.
Catalyst is on the cusp of dramatic changes that will transform lives and create a new and exciting visitor attraction for the north-west of England and beyond. It will have a Liverpool city region-wide impact, and draw in visitors from across the country and internationally. I am pleased that the city region Mayor, Steve Rotheram, is a huge supporter of Catalyst.
It all began in 1982 with an exhibition in the old town hall in Widnes to celebrate 100 years of the Society of Chemical Industry. The museum finally opened in the old Gossages building in the West Bank area of Widnes in 1989 as the Museum of the Chemical Industry. The Catalyst building stands tall on the banks of the River Mersey, looking towards Runcorn and close to our three magnificent bridges—the silver jubilee bridge, the new and huge Mersey gateway and the historic railway bridge. A stunning glass observatory was added to the top of the Catalyst building, giving spectacular views across the Mersey. It has a unique collection and has won many awards over the years.
The Mersey is about much more than just Liverpool. The heritage of the towns of Runcorn and Widnes, and their chemical industry, is tied to that great river, just as much as the city of Liverpool. There is a strong case that in Widnes and Runcorn we saw the birth of the chemical industry in the UK, an industry that since the 19th century was responsible for many innovations, inventions and products that improve all our lives.
ICI became the largest Halton chemical company, but it has now gone. Today, the largest chemical company is INEOS, whose operations at the Runcorn site are of strategic national importance to the UK and which is also a strong supporter of Catalyst. For a long time the chemical industry provided thousands of jobs, many taken up by immigrant workers, mainly from Ireland and eastern Europe, as well as workers from other parts of the UK moving to Halton. In fact, my own family’s heritage has huge connections to Ireland and many of my relatives worked for ICI, including my dad who was a process worker. The industry also brought its problems, with dangerous working conditions and pollution. Catalyst does not shy from that part of our heritage.
The chair of the friends of Catalyst, my constituent Professor David Hornby from the department of molecular biology and biotechnology at the University of Sheffield, wrote to me and said:
“The Catalyst SD&HC is a unique repository of historic documents and artefacts relating to the Industrial Revolution in the UK. The contribution of the Chemical Industry sector to the UK’s dominant global economic position over the period up to and including WWII is remarkable in itself.
In addition, following Fleming’s discovery of antibiotics and Florey and Chain’s translation of penicillin for the treatment of bacterial infections, the Chemical Industry paved the way for the Pharmaceutical sector, which remains one of the UK’s most lucrative sectors. Without which, the battle to overcome the current pandemic would have left the UK (and the world) much more exposed.”
So, no Brunner Mond, no ICI; no ICI, no AstraZeneca. He went on to say:
“The parallels between the last 50 years in Silicon Valley, California and the first 50 years of Halton’s chemical industry are compelling.
Both have arisen from the coalescence of a small group of highly educated and cultured pioneering individuals around a set of favourable geographical and logistical factors together with the rapid deployment of a largely migrant workforce.”
The conversion of Catalyst’s paper archive into a digital one is critical to secure the amazing legacy of the place for the future. I pay tribute to the museum’s trustees and friends group and the staff who have worked tirelessly over the years to keep it going through many financially challenging times. I pay special tribute to Chris Lewis, who recently stepped down but was the longstanding and highly effective chair of the friends of Catalyst.
On what Catalyst can do to promote STEM, I could not do better than quote Dr Diana Leitch MBE, chair of the trustees of Catalyst and one of its most longstanding supporters. She says:
“We at Catalyst strive to inspire younger generations to become scientists and engineers and believe in themselves and their futures through improving their education and their well-being.
By a combination of heritage and vision of the future, we can achieve much and put the Catalyst as a ‘Visitor Experience’ at the heart of Halton and NW England’s great developments.”
It is important that funding is secured for Catalyst’s future. Last year, the Government awarded it a grant of £162,000 as part of the £1.57 billion culture recovery fund, and the National Lottery Heritage Fund awarded it £8,600. However, it continues to face a real financial challenge. Martin Pearson, its chief executive, told me:
“We play an active role in supporting all the STEM subjects that schools do not have the ability to teach any more and work closely with industry partners to stimulate young people into work in our area.
However, being an independent Science Centre and Museum means we are totally reliant on visitor income and local company sponsorship. Our own estimates show that the income stream for 2021/22 will be 50% of that in the 2019 pre-Covid year. We are not out of the woods yet. We employ 18 staff and have a small but dedicated group of volunteers.”
Catalyst is a brilliant interactive museum and science centre. It is vital to our heritage and to encouraging future generations of our young people to take up careers in science, research and engineering, and we need to support it. I leave the final words to Professor David Hornby, who wrote to me and said:
“It seems to me to be vital not only to acknowledge the importance of Halton to this country’s manufacturing past but to support the Catalyst in stimulating a younger generation to become creative scientists who will be vital to this country’s future success.”
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) [V]
I will be brief. If hon. Members can hear any background noise, it is because I have a 16-month-old baby in a high chair next to me watching “Paw Patrol”. I am hoping she will be okay. I want to make some comments both as a former Science Minister who recognises the importance of science and discovery centres and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on museums. We have seen the impact of the culture recovery fund and what that has meant for keeping museums afloat over the past year. Science and discovery centres have been unable to access the culture recovery fund. I wrote to the Minister about that, but it was not possible to achieve change.
I want to talk about We The Curious, the science and discovery centre in Bristol. I remember it as the Exploratory from when I was growing up, and I have vivid memories of the wonderful experience I had visiting it several times. I would be taking my children to We The Curious if it were open now. Before covid, it had 300,000 visitors a year, of which 70,000 were school visits, so Bristol schoolchildren had huge opportunities to visit this centre right in Bristol city centre. However, it has lost £2.7 million of revenue since the pandemic began. It has had to restructure, making 46% of its education team redundant. The restructuring of staff has led to £1.1 million-worth of savings, but it is in dire straits.
We need to recognise that there were 60 science and discovery centres in the national network across the country. There have been several closures as a result of covid, but they had 25 million visitors a year, 11 million of whom were schoolchildren. Of those 11 million visits, 20% were organised through the STEM curriculum directly delivering lesson plans in science, physics and chemistry. We have seen an enormous loss over the past year, and we have to make sure that this loss is not compounded by the closure of centres, which means that children in local areas will miss out on the potential for science and discovery centres to enrich their curriculum and inspire the next generation of scientists.
Some will be unable to access the cultural recovery fund. I say to the Minister that this is the year of COP26 and this is the generation that is going to actually deliver on net zero. I have young children—a five-year-old and a six-year-old—and they have talked about the coronavirus and are acutely aware of science on the back of the pandemic. We have an opportunity to train the next generation of scientists. Science and discovery centres must play a key role in that, but they cannot do so when they are on their knees. The Government need to support these centres. Perhaps this year alone we could set them a specific mission with regards to COP26. It would help plug a funding shortfall if we were able to task the centres with local missions to engage young people on the back of an educational recovery plan that is needed for schools.
Whether it is the Department for Education, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport or the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, I urge the Government to look at the opportunities that COP26 provides for sustainability. Ultimately, science and discovery centres are well placed to teach the lessons and the science of sustainability, and to train up a future generation of new scientists and responsible citizens who will take the future of the planet incredibly seriously. Science and discovery centres can help them achieve that.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under you in the Chair, Mrs Miller. I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for securing this incredibly important and timely debate, and for his passionate opening contribution.
I will focus my remarks on the Eureka! national children’s museum, which I am incredibly proud to say is located in my Halifax constituency. I am an ambassador for Eureka! and in my maiden speech I spoke about my memories of its opening back in 1992. I was six years old, so hon. Members can imagine my excitement at the time. It is a real privilege to advocate for Eureka! as an adult, with no less enthusiasm than I had for it as a child.
As I am sure hon. Members will agree, science and discovery centres play a crucial role in inspiring the next generation of scientists and researchers, as well as in broadening access to STEM subjects by making them more accessible. That is absolutely essential for people from disadvantaged backgrounds and more marginalised communities. If it was not already obvious, the past year has shown just how crucial it is to nurture the next generation of scientists and big thinkers. Without them, the covid vaccine would simply not have been possible.
Eureka! is the only fully interactive museum for nought to 11-year-olds anywhere in Britain. Prior to lockdown, Eureka! attracted 315,000 visitors every year, with my two-year-old and me regularly among them. Significantly, however, 19% of those visitors were from areas with high levels of deprivation. Having recently met Leigh-Anne Stradeski, the chief exec of Eureka! it is clear to me that although every attempt has been made to be diligent and to build up reserves and financial resilience for the future, the museum will be in trouble in the next few weeks. It has been unable to access support during the pandemic and has received no Government recognition of the role it plays and the important work it does.
Up until now, the museum has spent more than £1 million of its available reserves. It has reduced the workforce by more than a third, through a redundancy programme, and it has been forced permanently to close the Eureka! nursery and, significantly for the current debate, the education department. Based on the current plans to reopen on 21 May, and assuming it will be able to remain open thereafter, it forecasts visitor numbers of 127,000 through to the year end and a drop in reserves to just above the amount required by the board to support the costs of winding up, should that become necessary. If for any reason the museum is unable to open as planned, that will inevitably result in a further deterioration of the financial outlook, so we can see what an anxious time it is for all involved at Eureka!
It was able to take advantage of some of the local government covid grants, the furlough scheme and reduced VAT rates for hospitality businesses but, like all other science museums, it has remained ineligible for any significant support. It has, however, applied for a grant of £112,00 via the most recent round of DCMS funding through the Heritage Lottery Fund, on the basis that we have heritage assets on the site with a significant cultural and economic impact on our region, so I very much hope that the decision makers for that fund are taking note of the debate.
The reason that the loss of the education team at Eureka! is so worrying is that prior to the pandemic just 15% of scientists were from working-class backgrounds. We are faced with an attainment gap that is increasing for the first time in 10 years, and it is clear that science and development centres such as Eureka! are more important than ever. STEM-based education programmes are delivered to an average of 32,000 key stage 1 and 2 children every year on school visits to Eureka! and the visits are undertaken by schools from across the region and beyond.
Another exciting project under way is Eureka! Mersey, a second Eureka! children’s museum in the Wirral, which is set to open in 2022. That project is secure, but retaining and utilising the expertise of the Halifax staff will be instrumental if we are to assist in unlocking the potential of even more children in that part of the world as well as our own.
Eureka! is the national children’s museum, and if any museum ever deserved support it is surely the national children’s museum. It does not receive any funding from the Government. I have met various Ministers about the issue and several have visited. Some genuine dialogue about that in the long term would be welcome. Right now, if the Government are serious about enhancing the accessibility of STEM subjects, which will be vital to the country’s future, they would not get a better return on their investment than by backing Eureka! the national children’s museum.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Miller. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) on bringing this important debate. I do not have a science and discovery centre in my constituency. I wish I did. However, I am sure that the vast majority of the residents are well aware of the fantastic Life centre in Newcastle. My daughter went many times to Eureka! in Halifax.
My constituency has a fabulous university technical college at Newton Aycliffe, supported by great companies such as Hitachi and Gestamp, as well as an amazing science and innovation-led business park at NETPark—the North East Technology Park—in Sedgefield. We are the home of such innovations as the first passenger railway, introduced almost 200 years ago by George Stephenson. I am absolutely convinced that it is through the stimulus of places such as the Life centre that young local minds can be open to considering careers in such exciting areas as research and innovation or engineering and science. We have all seen, in recent months, the difference that scientists can make to our life on this planet. The more young minds we can encourage, the better off we will be.
My constituency’s businesses and colleges are the opportunities through which young people can develop and grow and have stimulating and fulfilling careers and lives, but it is places such as the Life centre that open the first door on that route. It is difficult to overstate their importance. Whichever primary school I visit, the importance of aspiration and the opening of a mind to a world of discovery is precious. Those things can be the catalyst for aspiration to a life that youngsters could not previously have imagined. Later this week I shall be at Ferryhill Station and Bishopton Redmarshall primary schools and will make that point again.
Young minds engaged in STEM through science and discovery centres are stimulated regardless of gender, and that adds enormous value to the scientific community. For example, Universal Technical College South Durham inspires young women to go into science, technology, engineering and maths. A STEM-focused curriculum and experiences with employers put aside traditional stereotypes and allow youngsters to divine their own career path. Some 75% of the young women who go through the UTC have gone on to degree-level STEM apprenticeships in design, engineering or accountancy, or have done STEM at university.
I have visited many of the businesses in Newton Aycliffe and Sedgefield. They are all enhanced by the supply of young people with an interest in STEM subjects. It is through places such as the Life centre that seeds are planted to grow our scientists, engineers and mathematicians. I cannot overstate my desire that we support their efforts.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) on bringing this important debate to the House. It goes without saying that our nation’s regional science and discovery centres play a crucial role in the country’s STEM success, delivering inspirational science learning to schoolchildren and families, and working in partnership with schools, teachers, universities, businesses and local communities.
As a London MP, I know that many children in my constituency have been inspired on visits to the very popular Science Museum in South Kensington. Indeed, our own Mayor excelled at science and maths at A-level, and his original desire was to be a dentist. Look what happened to him: he is now the Mayor of London. Such inspirational visits have helped herald a generation of children and young people captivated by science and intent on a career in the UK’s promising scientific industries. It is these scientific industries we need to be doing our utmost to foster and support right now. I know this all too well as a recipient of the Oxford-AstraZeneca covid-19 vaccine. Professor Sarah Gilbert from Oxford University, who invented the vaccine, would have been inspired by the Science Museum, and I wonder whether she visited as a girl.
Many of those involved in the Oxford vaccine pipeline will have come through the state education sector and will have been inspired to pursue their dreams through visits to science museums, but I am deeply concerned about their future. Due to covid-19, science centres have mainly been closed since March and have had to make 50% to 80% of their education teams redundant in order to protect the long-term survival of their charities. These closures and redundancies have come when we most need our regional science centres to help with the educational recovery, to reduce inequality, to inspire young people from our most disadvantaged communities into science, and to encourage our young people into science and technology careers to support our industry and our learning.
At the same time, the Government have abandoned any pretence of having an industrial strategy and, as the Chair of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), has made clear:
“It is deeply concerning that at the very moment when the whole country recognises the importance of scientific research… that the science budget should be facing immediate and substantial cuts involving the cancellation of current research.”
We know that these cuts will undermine UK productivity. Every pound spent on research in the UK reaps a return of £1.60, and any cuts end up costing our economy millions.
Rather than saying, as the Prime Minister has done, that we have a successful covid-19 vaccine due to “greed” and “capitalism”—which could not be further from the minds of people such Professor Sarah Gilbert—the Government are well placed to recognise the contributions of British science and address the myriad challenges facing the sector. This must start with restating an industrial strategy with science, research and development and international collaboration at its heart. It must also have a holistic approach, recognising the challenges to the pipeline if science and discovery centres are unable to reach out and inspire the next generation of scientists.
British science has played a key role in shining a light out from the darkness and despair of this pandemic. Without action, we risk extinguishing the lights that will show us a path away from future challenges before they even begin.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) [V]
May I first thank my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for securing this debate, which gives us a brilliant opportunity to champion the impact of science centres in our constituencies?
In Wrexham, we have a brilliant science discovery centre called Xplore! It was formerly called Techniquest and I took my child there many times when he was growing up. In September last year I was honoured to be invited to the Xplore! rebrand event at its new location in Wrexham town centre, and to see at first hand its brilliant facilities and demonstrations. I saw children and adults wide-eyed, laughing, playing and learning—indeed, I was one of them. The most accurate analogy I can think of is being let loose in Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory. Xplore! has myriad interactive installations akin to Wonka’s chocolate factory—for inquisitive minds but without the calorie count.
I am proud that Wrexham has one of the 29 golden-ticket interactive science and discovery centres in the UK. Particularly for Wrexham, it is critical that these centres survive and thrive post covid. Science centres such as Xplore! are essential not only in promoting and inspiring the next generation into STEM careers, but in aiding the teching up of our older generation. It was only a few weeks ago that I stood in the main Chamber and asked the Prime Minister whether he agreed with me that Wrexham is an excellent hub to lead the charge for the STEM revolution. There are very few positives to have come out of covid, but the production and roll-out of the UK vaccine is one of them—a Union vaccine, created in England, trialled in Northern Ireland, bottled here in Wales and distributed in Scotland and across the rest of the Union—which means that this is a unique moment in time to promote and invest in opportunities and jobs in STEM sectors.
I would like the young people of Wrexham to learn and remember that Wockhardt in my constituency has bottled the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. I want them to be inspired by that. We have numerous pharmaceutical companies here on the Wrexham industrial estate. We have a major hospital, the Maelor, for those who seek a career in healthcare, and brilliant higher education facilities at Wrexham Glyndŵr University and Coleg Cambria, which are able, keen and willing to facilitate STEM education. And we have Xplore! to provide the perfect foundation for the promotion of those careers from an early age.
The science centres are more important now than ever. Not only should we be using them to promote STEM; we should also be using them as a key component for educational recovery post covid. The majority of children have had a limiting year learning at home. Within our collective aim to build back better, there must be an element of recapturing the lost hands-on education. For those children who are tactile learners, home schooling is hugely detrimental and utilising the centres for educational recovery will be vital.
With science and discovery centres having the potential to be such crucial players in the covid recovery education system, their funding model needs to reflect that importance. Over the past year, science centres in Wales have struggled. Xplore! has received minimal covid funding from the Welsh Labour Government. Ordinarily, Xplore! receives funding via the Welsh Government’s school programme in order to offer reduced cost visits and workshops. Thankfully, that funding scheme, which was due to end this month, has been extended until early next year. That is most welcome, but what happens in 2022? The fear is that children will lose out not only in terms of the catch-up agenda but on ongoing interactive learning which in turn promotes the take-up of STEM subjects. There is a domino effect.
We have the opportunity to be forward thinking in our approach to protecting our science and discovery centres. I urge the Welsh Government to contractually embed school visits within the national curriculum for the benefit of future generations of Welsh children.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Miller. I am delighted to speak in today’s debate and I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for calling it.
As people step inside the National Railway Museum, which is undergoing its biggest refit since first opening 50 years ago, their passion for engineering will be ignited. Steam, engineered almost 200 years ago, captured global attention and was soon used to advance trade, travel and engineering. In 2023, the museum opens its new Wonderlab in the heart of York. We believe it will catch global attention once more, not just displaying the achievements of a great engineering past but birthing a new generation of great engineers who will one day rival any the world over.
The UK’s economy, already facing an annual shortfall of around 59,000 engineers and technicians, is dependent on science and discovery centres to engage young people to reach into a new world of possibilities. While the dissected Ellerman Lines engine shows how steam-powered trains, through combining heat and water, drove forward the engineering of the past, the new Wonderlab, which is part of the museum’s £55 million upgrade, will enable young people to explore modern engineering, equipping them with the curiosity to find solutions to pressing critical and global challenges.
I do not want the experience to be just a memory; rather, I want it to be a journey for young people. The National Railway Museum’s “Future Engineers” programme is a start to that. How we continue to engage all who visit will be key. Nurturing a passion for engineering, from the moment of the first visit into a movement of budding engineers, is the next step for science and discovery centres. Does the Minister see that ongoing relationship as a central pillar of this work, especially for local children?
I also want to see the centres secure stronger links with local universities and colleges. Imagine what could be developed in fostering a young engineer. A significant programme focusing on inclusion could ensure that future engineers are representative of the country we live in. Those who would otherwise write themselves off might embark on a path into engineering. As so many others have said, those who have struggled with their education this year might re-engage in the curriculum. Girls, as much as boys, might realise the opportunities that engineering opens up. I want those sparks of imagination to catch fire.
Engineering is not theoretical but practical, so the way science and discovery centres link to the economy is also vital. In York, we are fortunate to have some of the greatest rail engineers in the country, working for predominantly specialist small and medium-sized enterprises, designing stations, rail systems, future infrastructure and high-tech digital rail. York is also home to one of Network Rail’s operations. Imagine one of our young engineers experiencing that.
The National Railway Museum is the centrepiece of the York Central brownfield site adjacent to York Central station, which is about to undergo major development. It opens up new opportunities, so rather than suffocating the site with luxury apartments, it must be used to build York’s future economic footprint, including a national engineering hub, not least because that was the heart of the site when British Rail engineered carriages there.
Imagine stepping out of the science and discovery centre and walking into an engineering company. That is what we should be striving for: not just investing in science and discovery centres, which are desperately needed now, but building science and discovery communities and consolidating engineering, with young residents, museums, schools, universities and industry all working together to create a pathway into engineering.
Will the Minister commit to working towards building science and discovery communities and providing seed funding for that work, so that we can build for our future? If we are serious about investing in science and discovery centres, and about growing our economy with the necessary skills, the Government have to get serious about growing the whole pathway, from Wonderlab to wonderful global engineers.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I welcome the debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) on making the running and on his excellent opening remarks.
I will not detain the House for long, but I want to make a few comments about the Winchester Science Centre, which I am very fortunate to have in my constituency. It is an independent educational charity that receives no statutory funding from local authorities or Government and raises more than £3 million every year to supports its core purpose of sparking curiosity in STEM. Many of your constituents will no doubt have visited it over the years, Mrs Miller.
It is all the more disappointing, then, in the context of the debate, that the Winchester Science Centre will lose an expected £2.5 million in revenue because of this dreadful pandemic. I place on record how incredibly grateful we are to the Government for their support with the furlough scheme and the many other support packages for businesses, which, it is no exaggeration to say, have prevented what could have been a much worse outcome. The Winchester Science Centre charity, however, has been excluded from applying for additional Government support—namely, the culture recovery fund, which I have spent a lot of time scrutinising as a member of the DCMS Committee. Other organisations in the local area that do similar activities have received large grants, which has created an uneven playing field.
Some excellent research published by University College London in 2017 clearly states that informal science education must start at primary school age, which is good, because the Winchester Science Centre has been focusing on five to 12-year-olds since 1986. That means that almost 4,000 children, who might otherwise not have had the opportunity, have taken part in free, informal science activities this past year, thanks to the centre’s widening participation in STEM outreach programme.
The facts speak for themselves. Some 170,000 visitors enjoy live science, hands-on activities, and an immersive 360° planetarium show each normal year—it is a fantastic show. Forty-five thousand school visitors engage with the activities every year, from 16 different counties across the south-east. That includes, of course, constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge.
Just to touch on the careers part of what we are discussing today, we in Winchester have strong STEM relationships across the extremely sci-tech rich M3 corridor, including a multi-year partnership with Airbus, memorandums of understanding for public engagement with the University of Southampton and the University of Surrey, which is in Guildford, and many collaborations with industry through, among others, the Enterprise M3 local enterprise partnership.
Going back to covid—as, regrettably, we always must—I know that the BBC gets all the plaudits for singing its own praises for its home learning work in the past year, but I would argue that science centres have more than done their bit. Winchester’s digital Science@Home campaign reached over a million people during a crisis where many organisations were not able to operate at all. Almost a quarter of a million children from across the UK watched a digital Christmas coding pantomime—it sounds such fun. That was developed as part of our “Get with the Program”, and promoted through Winchester’s schools network in last December.
We have heard today about the Association for Science and Discovery Centres, and I suspect that the Minister will be aware of that organisation. Winchester is, of course, a respected member of it, regularly participating in special interest groups to share best practice for the things they are doing. I know that, during the first lockdown, the Winchester team co-created a new website offering other science centres around the country best advice on how to make their experiences more accessible to all.
The future should be very positive and strong. We have not come this far to go down now. I know the team at Winchester, led by the excellent Ben Ward, are determined to move on from covid and come back stronger.
The truth is that, whatever the restrictions say, the school trips are not coming back any time soon, possibly not even in September—no matter my view on the over-caution that that would represent—so I would like the Minister, when she sums up, and colleagues across Government and at the Department for Education, to make the positive case for school trips later this year, and to give school leaders the confidence to get back out there.
As we have heard today, science centres will benefit from that because their main customer base is back, but the country will also benefit because of their obvious support for education and careers in STEM subjects—and boy, has the past 12 months shown how much we need them.
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
We now move to the Front-Bench speakers. I remind the Minister that, when she makes her contribution, she will need to wind up by about 3.58 pm to enable Dr Spencer to make his winding-up speech.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
The debate has given lots of Members the opportunity to speak fondly of science centres in their areas. I congratulate the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) on bringing forward this debate.
We have heard today from Members talking about Eureka! the national children’s museum in Halifax, Xplore! in Wrexham, the National Railway Museum in York and the Winchester Science Centre, among others. We are painting a picture of the role science centres can play in highlighting STEM opportunities to young people.
As we look to economic recovery post covid, we need young people with STEM expertise to play an active role. According to the all-party parliamentary group on diversity and inclusion in science, technology, engineering and maths, 65% of the STEM workforce are white men, so any initiatives we can take to improve diversity will be of economic benefit to us all.
The Scottish Government are determined to improve the take-up of STEM subjects in schools and to encourage diversity in STEM careers, and we are making progress on that. Compared with 2007, we now have 20% more female undergraduates and 36% more female postgraduates in STEM courses. However, a 2017 survey commissioned by the Scottish Government found that young people from the most deprived areas were 20% less likely than those in the least deprived areas to choose to study STEM courses. There is a continuing need to reach out to young people in whatever way we can, with a focus on girls, black, Asian and minority ethnic students and those from deprived backgrounds.
With that in mind, the role of science centres in Scotland is key and they work in partnership with local authorities to provide outreach and programmes that complement the school curriculum. That is recognised by the UK Association for Science and Discovery Centres, which states:
“The arrangement in Scotland seems particularly fruitful, whereby Scottish Science Centres have an agreement with the Scottish Government to reach children in schools and support teachers and families with inspirational STEM as part of the National Science Engagement Strategy. The Scottish Government particularly wants to reach families and communities from its most deprived areas… especially now, and contracts science centres to do this for them, as they already have the relationships, the centres, the science, the activities, the means and the passion.”
That is something that we have to see more of. I would like to talk a bit about Glasgow Science Centre. The centre is 20 years old and I first visited it as a physics teacher when I took youngsters there to enjoy it, which they did. It was a great day out and they had fun. At that point, there were a lot of activities that did not really lead to anything; it was not joined up. Over those 20 years, much more has been done and there has been great development in linking better with the curriculum and linking activities to careers and opportunities, so that it is a much more holistic experience for young people rather than just a fun day out.
The work of the centres during the pandemic has continued, albeit in a different format, and I will talk about some of the activities taking place at Glasgow Science Centre over the last challenging year. When lockdown first commenced, the centre committed to broadcasting new science content for every day of lockdown. By the end of the first lockdown, it had created and broadcast over 100 pieces of new science video content, which has been viewed more than 1 million times on social media. The centre created a printed magazine of science activities called The Spark, which was included in care packages and distributed to vulnerable families. It broadcast weekly on Sunny G and Paisley FM radio.
With no organised school visits possible, the centre developed a learning lab with lesson plans, experiments, videos, homework activities and “meet the expert” sessions, which are all packaged together to create a fully supported and interactive eight-week programme in STEM. Already nearly 3,000 pupils from 72 schools have taken part, with 77% from deprived areas. The centre has adapted its employability programme, STEM Futures, for online delivery and initiated a foundation apprenticeship programme to provide opportunities for young people when they need it most.
The Scottish Government have continued to support the work of science centres throughout the pandemic. Scottish science centres have received £2 million in emergency funding from the Scottish Government in addition to their usual contributions. To see centres in England excluded from the arts and heritage rescue package is concerning. We hear that 96% of science and discovery centres say they will not be able to cover costs when they reopen, and the Science Centres for Our Future campaign warns that the sector is at “imminent risk”.
The UK Government must support the science and discovery centres in England and ensure their success. Not only are the Government failing to support science and discovery centres, but they have removed other opportunities for STEM research through Brexit, whether through the Erasmus programme or faffing about with the funding for Horizon Europe. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) was right to highlight the brutal cuts to the science budget.
I am sure that hon. Members have gathered that Glasgow Science Centre is one of Scotland’s most successful and loved visitor attractions. As the world recovers from covid-19, visitors will return, but we need to look at a blended approach between in person and digital content that better serves our communities. Science centres can create long-term and sustained relationships with young people and build supportive ecosystems in schools, families and communities. Those centres are much more than a good day out, but they need support. I hope this Government, which professes to support science, will support those vehicles that are driving our future talent.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) on securing this important and timely debate. I agree with his comments on the differential impact on young people of the pandemic, particularly in education. I agree, without exception, with the contributions from around this virtual Chamber on the challenge and opportunities that the pandemic brings, and the impact on these centres.
We heard about the impact on the Catalyst Science and Discovery Centre from my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg); on the National Railway Museum from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell); on the Xplore! Centre from the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton); on the Winchester Science Centre; on the Eureka! Centre in Halifax, and on the Bristol Exploratory Centre, which the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) discussed. I was not aware of its being known as “the Exploratory”, but I did once visit it when it was known as At-Bristol.
All those centres, as we have heard, provide the spark that encourages young people to think about the world around them. I quote a particular individual who said, “Be curious”. Those are the words of the late Stephen Hawking in that powerful moment of opening the Paralympic games in 2012, when the world’s gaze fell on our country. His message was somehow amplified by the sight of his crumpled frame, because he did not just encourage us, he urged us. To quote him fully,
“look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious.”
It was a rare public appearance for someone so famous in the scientific community, but less well known beyond. His global message sought to inspire the world through hope and optimism. That invitation—that urgency—was to create a brave, new and better world for everyone by challenging perceptions and stereotypes that limit the potential of the human body, mind and spirit. It was a special moment.
If we needed telling—and perhaps we did—science is all around us. It is only a matter of opening our eyes, of what we are able to see, what we are trained to see, or what we have the innate talent to see. For some, such as Stephen Hawking, that talent was able to flourish. It may have developed in the classroom, but it was his observation of the universe that made him wonder. So much great scientific thinking has come from observing the world around us and asking why or how. Those reflections can spur deep thought as we ponder the natural world and have spurred, through the centuries, the work of Archimedes, Galileo, Leonardo da Vinci, and, closer to home, that of Newton, Mary Anning, Charles Darwin, and countless others—all by asking the simple question of why.
The UK has a proud history of science and innovation, though many scientific discoveries, including penicillin by the Scot Alexander Fleming and the structure of DNA by Franklin, Crick and Watson. UK inventions include Stephenson’s steam engine, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central; the television, by another great Scot, John Logie Baird; the jet engine by Coventrian Frank Whittle; the World Wide Web by Sir Tim Berners-Lee; the modern bicycle; the flying wing that led to the development of Concorde and ultimately the stealth fighter; the jump jet; the lithium-ion battery; graphene—all British or co-developed with other nations. I could go on.
Through time, these discoveries have helped to improve our understanding of the natural world and the science that forms it. So much of that has originated from the observations of curious minds: Newton observing how apples fell perpendicularly to the ground; Boyle observing in a laboratory as those early scientists sought to explain the relationship between pressure, volume and temperature that would ultimately lead to the development of power and engines; Baird, who built what was to become the world’s first working television set, using items including an old hatbox, a pair of scissors, some darning needles, a few bicycle light lenses, a used tea chest, and sealing wax and glue that he had purchased; and Sir Frank Whittle, who became fascinated by the gas engine and the work of pistons in his dad’s small workshop in Leamington—those observations ignited his interest in propulsion and ultimately led to his work in developing the jet engine. Few of us have those workshops or garages, or the courage, in the case of Baird, to conduct experiments in the kitchen or lounge. In fact, Baird’s landlord threw him out of his rented property when he discovered what he was doing.
For all these reasons, having places to observe and appreciate the physical and scientific world is so important, and that is why the value of centres of science and discovery cannot be overestimated. Some 15 years ago, I visited the discovery centre—that was how it was known —in Bristol. It was a triumph, appealing to young and old minds and demonstrating the fascination of physics and the workings of the natural world. In total, the UK boasts a network of almost 60 science and discovery centres, including science museums, science centres, discovery centres and natural history and environment centres. Rather impressively, some 19% of the UK population said that they had visited a science and discovery centre once or more in 2019, with 33% claiming that they had visited a science museum.
These centres do a terrific job in stimulating young minds, as so many hon. Members have commented. That is important, particularly in encouraging the uptake of related subjects in our schools. I will just look at the statistics for England, if I may. The proportion of A-level students entering for any maths or science subject has increased from 35% in 2015-16 to 46% in 2019-20. That increase in interest is important if we are to build on our established reputation, renowned around the world—a reputation that underpins a science sector that is worth £63.5 billion and provides jobs in research institutes and universities and in businesses of all sizes across the country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) said, we have only to look at the leadership of Dr Sarah Gilbert and her team at Oxford University and its tie-up with AstraZeneca to understand how important this is and how vital it is that we attract more women, and indeed black and minority ethnic students, into the sector.
The centres themselves are threatened, as so many Members have said in the debate. According to a survey conducted by the UK Association for Science and Discovery Centres last June on the impacts of the pandemic, some 96% of science centres felt that they would not be able to cover costs at 30% capacity. Revenues are down by 50%, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halton mentioned. There are staff cuts across the board. In the case of the Eureka! centre, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) said, the staff are down by one third.
The financial uncertainty was underlined by the Government’s announcement that these centres would be largely excluded from the arts, heritage and culture rescue package of £1.6 billion. In October 2020, the UKASDC, chaired by the brilliant Professor Alice Roberts, wrote to the Government and called for £25 million of emergency financial support for the sector. The letter, signed by 160 professionals working in STEM, said that the sector was at imminent risk; 62% of the facilities have said that they could cease to be a going concern in the next 18 months.
Let me turn briefly to the wider issue of this country’s recent record on science, where unfortunately the Government’s warm words have often not been matched by deeds, and where their industrial strategy seems to have been mothballed. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not even mention such a strategy in either of his Budget statements. That failure has seen the UK lose during the past decade a significant amount of its world-leading pharmaceutical manufacturing capabilities—capabilities vital for drug and medicine development. And the failure has resulted in the north receiving less than half the life science investment per head in the south of England, despite having great teaching hospitals and significant health inequalities. In the midlands, the investment is as low as £16 per person.
This is not simply a question of geographic inequality; there is also inequity by gender and ethnicity. Presently, 65% of the STEM workforce are white males, and more directly the STEM workforce has a lower share of female workers than the rest of the workforce—27% versus 52%. It is therefore striking when we hear of those women who have broken through and excelled in their field, such as Professor Sarah Gilbert. Just the other day, we heard of the latest young woman engineer of the year, Ella Podmore, who spends her days pushing the boundaries working in material composites at McLaren. But they are sadly rare in the science sector, with women representing only 9% of people in non-medical STEM careers. Elsewhere, BAME men are less likely to work in STEM than white men, yet we face a shortfall of 173,000 STEM workers, costing the sector £1.5 billion a year.
This gap was highlighted last year by the all-party parliamentary group on diversity and inclusion in science, technology, engineering and maths, which published a report following a 15-month inquiry on whether the education system and schools provide equal opportunities for students of all ages to learn STEM subjects in England. Its recommendations included the need for a Minister responsible for adjusting inequity in the education system; STEM education that is more relevant to the lives of all young people; and greater action to address teacher shortages in STEM subjects. We can therefore understand why the centres that we have discussed today are so important.
We must invest in a science future and not rely on this Government’s science fiction, where promised research investment has been cut. We need to ensure that young people have the opportunities to be curious to discover in the classroom. This is why Labour is more ambitious than this Government. We would build on the UK’s science successes and ensure that we continue to be an innovation nation by spending 3% of our GDP on research and development, because it is a no-brainer for our economy.
The Campaign for Science and Engineering has shown that, for every £1 invested by the Government in research and development, we get back 20p to 30p each and every year. Likewise, research by King’s College London and Brunel University London has shown that for every £1 invested in medical research, we get back 25p to the economy each and every year. The Labour party would also seek to champion our universities as engines of regional progress, strengthening regional economies by rebalancing R&D investment. We would address the shortfall of STEM workers by helping to encourage women and those from BAME backgrounds into STEM, starting at school level, to ensure there is the pipeline of talent we need for the future. Widening access is not just the right thing to do for individuals; by tapping this talent, we will strengthen the sector by diversifying decision making and we will encourage continuous lifelong learning and reskilling.
Labour has a long and proud history of supporting science—judge us on our record. In the first 10 years in government, we more than doubled the science budget. If we are to meet the challenges of the future, it is vital that we excite our young people in science and encourage them to be inventive in every sense. While STEM is important, I would add words of caution: we cannot all be coders or scientists and we must also value our arts, which are so important to us culturally and economically. As Stephen Hawking said: “Be curious.” To that I would add: “Be inquisitive.”
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) on securing this important debate. I want to reassure him, and other Members who have spoken today, that this Government are absolutely committed to having a strong STEM workforce and in fertilising the pipeline for that workforce. As a Back Bencher, I ran the Wiltshire festival of engineering and manufacturing, which targeted primary schools to encourage and inspire local children to engage in these areas, and to seed a thought about aspiring to a career in those sectors. In my constituency we are not lucky enough to have a science centre, but I encourage constituents to visit those in neighbouring areas, including the fantastic We The Curious science museum in Bristol, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) rightly spoke extremely highly of.
It is absolutely imperative that we challenge the negative stereotypes that some young people might associate with STEM, including any notion that these should be male-dominated careers. Some of the centres even have programmes to do just that, including the Catalyst Science Discovery Centre in the constituency of the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), which holds free careers events for years 8 and 9 to inspire the next generation.
It is also vital that we ensure that the education system feeds the skills shortage. On that point I disagree with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), whom I welcome to his post, because it is far from the case that the Government have simply offered words and not deeds. In fact, we have spent the past 10 years seeking to do just that with the EBacc; reforms to further education, including the introduction of T-levels; higher technical qualifications; the internet of things; and a drive to raise quality and investment in STEM in higher education. That said, we recognise the value and importance of working in partnership with communities and our treasured community assets, especially science discovery centres.
The Government were elected on a manifesto to level up. We absolutely believe that anyone, regardless of their background, should have the opportunity to pursue a rewarding career in STEM. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and others pointed out how much of a role the science discovery centres play in that objective, especially in encouraging those from disadvantaged backgrounds to discover a love of science and STEM more broadly. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) put it correctly when he said that they can be a catalyst for aspiration. They not only bring science alive, but make it accessible for all. When I was at school, I had several trips to the Eureka! centre. I completely agree with the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on how amazing and inspirational that is.
Science is vital not only for the economic good of our country, but for the prospects of individuals. The Winchester Science Centre and Planetarium, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) outlined, runs innumerable fantastic initiatives, including workshops for primary schools, with computer program classes where children case use code to explore solutions to deep-sea noise pollution, getting the next generation not only able to progress skills in these areas, but excited about saving the environment. As my hon. Friend pointed out, they have had various initiatives to reach out to more than 1 million during the pandemic. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) that it is vital that these centres survive and thrive post covid, including the Xplore! centre in her constituency.
As hon. Members have explained today, the network of publicly accessible UK science and discovery centres provide an important role in inspiring people of all ages to discover the vital role that science has played in creating the world we now live in, and how it can help to create the world that we want to live in in future. They also offer invaluable support to schools, colleges and universities.
The pandemic has challenged us all, and science and discovery centres have certainly not been immune. That is why the Government supported all the science centres, which are accredited museums, that applied for funding in England through the culture recovery fund. The £1.57 billion support package is the largest ever one-off investment in UK culture, and we have continued to support national museums and galleries with £100 million of targeted support for national cultural institutions. That support was announced last year, and a further £90 million was announced at the recent Budget. Also, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport sponsors numerous museums that are also members of the ASDC.
Visitor attractions, which are not categorised as museums, will continue to benefit from the reduced rate of VAT, which the Government have temporarily applied to visitor attractions, as well as the pan-economic measures such as the coronavirus job retention scheme, Government-backed loans and business rate deferrals. I am sure that my counterparts in DCMS will meet Members to discuss the cultural recovery fund in more detail, and I am sure BEIS will respond to the ideas illuminated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood. I am more than happy to co-ordinate and lead a meeting with any Members who would find it useful.
As I previously stated, covid-19 has had a profound impact on the country. Despite the progress that we have made, research published by Engineering UK suggests that the pandemic has disrupted our efforts to widen the demographic and encourage more people to pursue STEM subjects and occupations. Demand for jobs in science, research, engineering and technology are going only in one direction. To meet the demand, it is crucial that we not only attract the brightest and best in these jobs, but improve the diversity of our workforce to meet the demand for the skills that will underpin the UK economy’s recovery and our mission to build back better.
In fact, engineering-related sectors contribute at least £280 billion in gross value added to the UK economy, some 20% in total. In 2018, however, EngineeringUK reported an annual shortfall of 59,000 engineering graduates and technicians to fill core roles. In 2018-19, only 17% of engineering and technology undergraduates were female, meaning that the vast majority were male. That translates into the engineering workforce, where women represent only 12% of those in engineering and technicians, and ethnic minorities represent just 8%.
We know that studying engineering and technology degrees leads to increased employability and earning potential. In 2015-16, the earnings of those who had studied engineering and technology were 18% more, on average, for first-time degree graduates in the first six months of leaving university. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) was right to say that we must encourage the next generation to consider STEM-related pathways, especially those in under-represented groups.
Science and discovery centres can play a key role in that but, as we know, remote teaching for children and young people has been substantially impacted during the pandemic. It is crucial to ensure that our children can catch up, so that no child is left behind as a result of the pandemic. To address that challenge, the Prime Minister has committed to developing a long-term plan to help schools support pupils to catch up on their learning over the course of the Parliament.
We have appointed Sir Kevan Collins as education recovery commissioner. He is engaging with parents, pupils and teachers in the development of this broader approach, and is reviewing how evidence-based interventions can be used. We have made available £1.7 billion funding to support the education recovery, which began in June 2020. We have announced a £1 billion catch-up programme, including a national tutoring programme and a catch-up premium for this academic year. In February 2021 we committed a further £700 million to fund summer schools, the expansion of the tutoring programme and a recovery premium for the next academic year.
We are also funding programmes to increase the take-up of maths, computing and physics, and to support improved teaching in schools. That includes more than £80 million for computer education, through the National Centre for Computing Education, and more than £100 million for teaching for mastery programmes. The Government also fund STEM learning to deliver a national network of science-learning partnerships, providing high-quality continuing professional development for science teachers.
As has been raised in debate, last year, for the first time, girls made up more than half of the science A-level entries, and there was an increase of more than 30% in girls’ entries to STEM A-levels in England since 2010. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, girls continue to make up relatively small proportions of entries to maths, physics and computing at A-level. We are therefore funding research programmes to investigate ways to tackle the gender balance in those subjects.
I agree with hon. Members that science and discovery centres can play a part in the catch-up mission, by enhancing learning and reigniting that love of learning, which may have waned while some have studied predominantly online throughout the pandemic. I can confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and other hon. Members that I shall raise the role that those centres can play directly with Sir Kevan Collins and the Minister for School Standards, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb).
I also look after opportunity areas, including Opportunity North East, and I pledge today that I will raise the points made in this debate with the chairs, including the value that those centres can play in raising attainment in STEM subjects and career aspirations.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and others that we must seize the opportunity to do everything we can to encourage more people to study and take up careers in STEM, especially where they are from under-represented groups. Science and discovery centres should play an integral part in that. They already inspire 5 million schoolchildren and their families with science every year. Their curriculum-linked STEM workshops support more than 1.5 million students.
I will end by urging all parents and schools to consider visiting their nearest centre, when restrictions allow. Many are free and, as detailed by hon. Members today, they can bring science to life in innovative and exciting ways.
Dr Spencer
I thank the Minister for her speech and, in particular, for reaffirming the importance of science and discovery centres, and for the points that she will take forward. I would very much like to take her up on the offer of the meeting that she agreed to convene.
As an aside, I noted the comment of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) about the separation of arts and science. Personally, however, I see that as a false dichotomy—what is Beethoven’s “Moonlight Sonata” without the invention of a piano; and what is rock and roll without the pickup and the amplifier? For so long, we have differentiated and created artificial divisions, but at their core, arts and science are one and key to us as human beings and to our society.
I thank Members for their fantastic contributions to the debate. What came out for me and, I suspect, for the people watching at home who work in the science and discovery centres and who inspire and teach children about science and discovery, was the personal stories that so many Members brought out—bringing their children to science and discovery centres. Hearing about the National Railway Museum, it is difficult not to conjure up images of steam trains, with the smells and seeing the pistons, thinking back over the changing industrial age. Science is such a personal experience, and what makes science and discovery centres—what makes them special—is not just the machines, the ants, the space rockets or all the different bits of tech or kit to be seen when there, but the people. It is about the volunteers and staff who work in the centres, who are passionate about science, teaching, learning and innovation —as passionate, or more passionate, as the Members who took part in the debate, who talked with such love about their science and discovery centres and about the role of science in our society going forward.
The centres are so important to all of us, to our future and to our future workforce. They need to be open, and they need the financial support and backing to stay open. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) made such a strong point—the centres should not just be open; we have to ensure that kids get back into them, and as soon as possible. Particularly over the next few months, that will be such a challenge—inspiring the confidence and getting back into the centres, back learning and having the great experience and opportunities that they offer.
In wrapping up, I again thank Members for taking part in this important debate. In particular, I thank everyone who works in science and discovery centres and everyone who inspires our next generation about science.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Science and Discovery Centres’ support for education in science and careers in STEM subjects.
Bakerloo Line Extension
(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
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. We do not have anybody participating virtually in this debate. I remind Members who are here to clean their spaces before they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall other than when you are speaking.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government funding for the Bakerloo Line extension.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Miller, for the second time—it might be the Minister’s first, but it is my second. We are limited in time and very limited in number today, but it is quality that counts—I am speaking about the Minister, rather than myself. Many colleagues have sent apologies, including my neighbours, my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) and for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the Mother of the House. Well they might send apologies, because the Bakerloo line extension was first mentioned in 1913, so our constituents have been waiting more than a century for this debate and for Bakerloo line trains to arrive a bit further than the Elephant and Castle, where they end currently.
I start by thanking the Secretary of State for Transport and the wider Government ministerial team for the safeguarding work. The land above and below ground for the Bakerloo line extension has been protected. I am grateful that the Government acted swiftly on the safeguarding directions, in response to my question in December, and I was glad to see that published on 1 March. This is a decisive milestone for the project. It is important that the time and resources already spent on the extension are not wasted and that the Government remain committed to the next stages of development for this vital and hugely popular scheme to progress.
I say it is hugely popular, because there is so much evidence to back that up. The Transport for London public consultation saw a tiny fraction—less than 3%—of the people who responded objecting to the extension. The public overwhelmingly see the benefits of the scheme, and more than 20,000 people have signed the “Back the Bakerloo” petition online, including many of my constituents.
The project has the backing of the leaders, mayors, councillors and councils of five London boroughs. Southwark Labour has campaigned collectively on it for years. The planning and preparatory work is already well under way and delivery for the extension is embedded into the local development plan for the borough. In Southwark alone, it is estimated that the extension will help deliver more than 2 million square feet of employment space for a range of new work. It also features heavily in Lewisham’s local development plan. The BakerLewisham extension campaign was a brilliant success for Damien Egan, the mayor, and outgoing councillor Joe Dromey. It is a fantastic campaign with lots of public support.
I and eight other local MPs whose constituencies are directly affected by the extension have all been campaigning together to see it delivered. It is a cross-party campaign. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) is a prominent backer of the Bakerloo line extension and, of course, the former Mayor of London, now the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) and the Prime Minister, has backed the campaign for some years. The Bakerloo line extension formed a major part of his 2011 London plan and, since then, it has been embedded in successive London plans, highlighted as an integral piece of infrastructure within the economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of all London. Indeed, in 2015, the Prime Minister said:
“The extension of the Bakerloo line will provide a vital new transport link for people living and working in south London…We’re now firmly on track to get construction on this major project underway by 2024 and have it up and running by 2030.”
He now holds the key to unlocking all the benefits that the extension could bring. He flagged up today at Prime Minister’s questions that the Government are spending £640 billion on national infrastructure—an amazing sum. I am genuinely impressed. It is good to see infrastructure coming forward. We need nuclear investment, we need other infrastructure investment and the Bakerloo line extension should form part of that infrastructure development.
One reason the extension is so universally popular is all the benefits it would bring. It is not just about transport—it is about regeneration, the delivery of housing, jobs and the post-covid economic recovery, and tackling the climate emergency. Of course, it does have transport benefits. Improved transport links and reduced journey times would benefit my constituents and hundreds of thousands of people across south London. It would bring capacity for 87,000 more people every morning in peak time. It would mean that a tube train every two to three minutes between Lewisham and central London is possible.
It has environmental benefits. The Bakerloo line extension would help reduce air pollution and congestion on the roads by increasing capacity on the tube and taking many journeys off our congested streets, including the Old Kent Road. Improving and expanding public transport options is also central to the Government’s plans to tackle the climate emergency and meet our carbon emission targets, a priority that is particularly significant given that COP26 is rapidly approaching in Glasgow later this year.
It also has significant housing benefits. The extension of the Bakerloo line from Elephant and Castle would mean 20,000 new homes for the Old Kent Road alone, including 7,000 genuinely affordable homes in my constituency and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham. Across London, it would mean the development of 110,000 new homes, which would be a significant contribution to the Government’s commitment to deliver 300,000 new homes a year. This is and should be seen as a partnership between national Government and the devolved authority in London.
Of course, it brings many jobs: 10,000 new jobs in the immediate area of the extension, but 130,000 jobs across London. It would create a new work space along the whole route, generating a growth corridor from the Elephant and Castle right out to Kent. That route takes the extension through some of the most disadvantaged parts of London. Parts of south Bermondsey and north Walworth have 40% child poverty. There is a reason why the Old Kent Road is the cheapest square on the classic Monopoly board.
The next steps to success are to reach a single preferred option, and all of it is contingent on funding. Since 2016 Sadiq Khan has been an excellent Mayor for London. He has stabilised Transport for London’s finances, reduced the operating deficit by 71% and increased the cash balance by 30%, while delivering the Hopper fare, which has benefitted more than 200,000 people on routes through Southwark. All Londoners—millions of people on routine journeys—have benefitted from the fares freeze, but we cannot ignore the last year, which has been devastating for Transport for London’s finances.
The pandemic has meant a 90% drop in passenger revenue in 2020, meaning a loss of £2.4 billion in fares and rendering Londoners entirely reliant on Government for funding for future capital projects of this scale and for smaller projects. I hope that we are not going to see the Minister try to pass the buck for these costs on to Londoners. In his letter to the Mayor of London in October, the Transport Secretary acknowledged that Transport for London will need support for capital projects even when Transport for London becomes self-sufficient in running costs again under Heidi Alexander’s excellent leadership. That self-sufficiency target is set for 2023-24.
The Government could help by returning the annual operating grant to the capital city. The last payment in 2015 was £700 million, before the previous Mayor gave away the operating grant, which was perhaps a foretaste of his negotiating abilities. That money would go a long way to meeting the projected costs for the extension from Elephant and Castle to Lewisham, which are estimated to be between £4.7 billion and £7.9 billion. The range of cost reflects the contingency and uncertainty that a major capital scheme like this requires at this stage of the development.
No other major city operates on this system. In Paris and New York fares account for just 38% of revenue, in Hong Kong for 37% and in Singapore for 21%. Londoners are being asked to shoulder far more cost for their underground system than people in any other major city. That system, built on uncertainty, has been added to in the last year by covid. On Monday, the Government agreed another short extension to the Transport for London funding deal, on the same conditions. This temporary extension will now end in May, with a new agreement needing to be negotiated by 18 May, following the mayoral election.
The Minister may wonder why the Government’s candidate is languishing in the polls in London. It is partly because Londoners are not stupid. They have seen the contrast between being punished with a deal for Transport for London, which has restrictions and a cost imposed for Londoners that we did not see in any other deal for any other part of the country, and rail companies being provided with £3.5 billion of public money with no conditions. Londoners were told to stay at home to protect the NHS. They did their bit and they are losing out through a deal with terrible conditions attached.
As part of the current negotiations, Transport for London is making the case for continued funding to close out the current stage of design, to protect the Bakerloo line extension safeguard from challenge, and to develop a single preferred option that would be shovel-ready. That would put the scheme in a position where it would be ready to be taken forward to planning, if and when funding was identified. Transport for London hopes to provide an update on that by the end of May, by which point the next funding deal should have been agreed.
We obviously cannot ignore the context; we all know what has been happening. The vaccine is providing a jab in people’s arms, but the whole country needs an economic shot in the arm. We need an economic boost and the Bakerloo line extension would deliver just that for the whole country. By supporting London, the Minister would support the whole country. When London is operating at full capacity, it delivers a net contribution to the Treasury of £39 billion a year. The Government need that money coming in and Londoners want to get back to work. The Bakerloo line extension helps to rebuild post-covid, and by investing in London’s infrastructure the Minister and the Government would support regeneration across the United Kingdom.
I will give just one example of how the Bakerloo line extension would contribute to the national recovery. The Prime Minister has visited the Siemens plant in Goole up in Yorkshire—more than once, I think. That site is the expected place of manufacture of the trains and carriages that would run on the Bakerloo line in London. Investing in the Bakerloo line extension provides a boost for London, but it also provides jobs in Goole.
Of course, the Government talk a lot about levelling up. Levelling up does not just apply outside London. Ministers must not just talk the talk; they need to walk the walk, or better still take the tube, perhaps. I hope that the Minister will agree that the Bakerloo line extension is an excellent example of levelling up. I invite her to come and see these sites, to see where these jobs, housing and transport infrastructure would be. I hope that if she made such a visit, I and others who support the extension would be able to prove to her that the best way to level up is to get the Bakerloo line extension track down. That would be a fantastic opportunity for her to see.
In conclusion, I look forward to hearing how the Minister will ensure that her Government meet their housing targets, environmental agenda, infrastructure plans and levelling up agenda, and I also look forward to hearing how we will work together to deliver this project to boost the national economy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Miller. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) for securing this debate on Government funding for the Bakerloo line extension. I agree with him—I think the debate is definitely about quality. He has demonstrated that in his remarks, in which he set out his passionate case to represent his constituents. I commend him on that wholeheartedly.
Of the 270 operational London Underground stations, only 29 are in south London. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman already knows, there are more underground stations in Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire than there are in his home borough of Southwark. We agree that transport infrastructure is critical in ensuring that communities can work together to achieve their ambitions of having prosperous, safe and vibrant places to live. Indeed, it has never been more important than in the period of recovery from the covid-19 pandemic.
The proposals for the Bakerloo line would extend the route from Elephant and Castle to Lewisham. Transport for London’s plans include new stations along the A2 Old Kent Road and at New Cross Gate, a new Bakerloo line ticket hall at Elephant and Castle, and an improved interchange at Lewisham station. It is important to note, as I know the hon. Gentleman already understands, that this is a Transport for London project and Transport for London is devolved, so this is the responsibility of the Mayor of London and Transport for London, whose responsibilities include capital projects. Therefore, it is for the Mayor of London and Transport for London to assess the merits of capital projects and make decisions on investment.
As the hon. Gentleman has discussed already, the Secretary of State has recently issued safeguarding directions for the proposed extension route. Safeguarding does not represent a Government commitment to fund the project, but it does ensure that the route is protected for the future, because without safeguarding the project’s costs could become significantly higher over time.
Safeguarding directions have been issued because the Government agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Bakerloo line extension has the potential to unlock housing and economic growth. Therefore, it is key to understanding the opportunities that the Bakerloo line extension, and other projects in London and across the country, present for our goals on housing supply.
The hon. Gentleman will know that Transport for London is yet to secure the funding required to progress this project and Transport for London’s commissioner confirmed to the London Assembly earlier this month that the extension is on hold for the time being. We believe that safeguarding has provided Transport for London with the opportunity to take the extension forward at a future time.
I will use this opportunity to briefly reflect on the broader context in which we are having today’s debate. The hon. Gentleman has referred to some of these matters. Our focus right now remains on responding to the pandemic, and there are significant challenges facing the whole country, including the transport network. In London’s case, the Department for Transport is continuing to work closely with Transport for London to ensure that the transport network can support the restart and recovery of the city. The Government have already shown a significant commitment to supporting London’s transport network and Londoners throughout the pandemic, including more than £3 billion in emergency funding since May 2020. That is a significant amount of money that has been provided to help Transport for London keep the essential networks going. On Monday, the Government agreed an extension to the current Transport for London funding deal, which had been due to expire on 31 March.
Neil Coyle
I am keen to explore the future funding specifically. from the, Point 5 of the letter from October from the Transport Secretary to the Mayor of London says:
“In relation to any long-term plans, HMG define financial sustainability as TfL’s ability to cover, from sources available to it (including, the consideration of potential new sources of income but excluding government grant): operating expenditure; capital renewals; servicing and repaying debt; and capital enhancements. For major capital enhancements and major renewals (i.e. replacement of life expired rolling stock and signalling), TfL would not be expected to solely finance these from operating incomes; as is consistent with other transport authorities.”
It is about that next step, rather than the immediate temporary measures to carry the capital through the covid crisis. I am keen for the Minister to move on to that agenda, if possible.
Rachel Maclean
I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s desire to move on to the future of the project. What I wish to say on that point is that, obviously, the Government will be working very closely with Transport for London on the future funding settlement, so that we can continue to ensure the sustainability of the transport network. I very much encourage him to continue his work and his communications with my noble Friend in the other place, Baroness Vere, who is intimately involved in the discussions, and with the Secretary of State for Transport, because the Government absolutely wish to ensure that there is a sustainable transport network for London and the whole country.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate on this topic; it is a very important matter. The issuing of safeguarding directions has protected the proposed route for the future, which is a very positive step. It provides Transport for London with more time to put together a funding package without the cost of the project significantly escalating. That is a very important step in the right direction. I also encourage the hon. Gentleman to aim his questions about funding at the Mayor of London and Transport for London following May’s election.
Question put and agreed to.
UK Rare Diseases Framework
(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
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to the 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, so there will also be suspensions between each debate. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive at the start of the debate in Westminster Hall. 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 here in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email Westminster Hall Clerks. Members should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall except, of course, when speaking.
There are no more notes from me but a reminder that we shall move to winding-up speeches at about 5.28, and after the first speech I am afraid I shall have to put in a formal three-minute time limit, because it is a heavily subscribed debate.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the implementation of the UK Rare Diseases Framework.
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mrs Miller. About one in 17 people will during their lifetime be affected by a rare condition. Around 70% of such conditions begin in childhood and are lifelong. Genetic Alliance UK estimates that rare diseases are responsible for about one third of infant mortality in the UK. Those living with a rare condition can face significant challenges in getting a diagnosis, getting access to treatment, and receiving co-ordinated care, as well as challenges with employment, education, social life and mental health.
The UK rare diseases framework, which was published earlier this year, presents an opportunity for the rare diseases community. There is hope that the framework will enable people living with rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions to get access to the appropriate care and the treatment that they need to manage their condition. However, we have been here before. In 2013 the UK strategy for rare diseases was published, with the promise that no one would be left behind just because they have a rare disease. When the strategy expired last year, people living with rare conditions were confused and disappointed. Although the strategy had made some progress, it had failed in its commitment to transform the lives of all those affected by rare conditions.
A major factor that prevented the true potential of the strategy from being realised is the long delay from the Department of Health and Social Care or NHS England in developing and publishing an implementation plan. The strategy was published in 2013, yet an implementation plan for England was delivered only in 2018. Not only did that prevent progress in England; it also stymied developments in the devolved nations, which were unable to collaborate effectively without a plan. As yet, the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England have not published the outcome of the strategy. If we are to learn from the mistakes of the past, we must evaluate what happened with the strategy. Will the Minister comment on whether the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England will in fact report on the outcome of the strategy?
The UK rare diseases framework is the beginning of a new chapter. For it to be implemented effectively, the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England must work together to deliver a timely and comprehensive action plan. That action plan is needed now more than ever because the rare diseases community has been waiting long enough for improvements in care and treatment. The pandemic continues to bear heavily on the health and wellbeing of those with rare conditions, who are among the most vulnerable to covid-19 impacts. There is a gap in detailed policy to drive improvements for people living with rare conditions in the UK, until action plans are published to implement the framework.
The framework covers four key areas and seeks to make progress. The first priority is to help patients to get a final diagnosis more quickly. On average, rare disease patients wait four years to receive a diagnosis, with some waiting over 20 years. For people with a rare condition, it is often a long journey, frequently with several misdiagnoses, until a final correct diagnosis is reached. Often this journey is labelled as the diagnostic odyssey. The framework describes what is already happening to improve diagnosis, but it does not talk about improving the screening service for people living with rare conditions. The UK National Screening Committee currently screens for just nine conditions using the heel-prick test. That compares poorly with many European countries: Italy and Iceland screen for more than 40, Poland and the Netherlands screen for more than 30, and Hungary, Slovakia and many others screen for more than 20 conditions.
Earlier this month, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence approved access to a new gene therapy for spinal muscular atrophy. NICE said that for some babies who are diagnosed before they have symptoms, it might come close to being a cure. For it to have the chance to be a cure, however, we need to identify the babies before they begin to be affected by the condition. To do that, we need newborn screening for spinal muscular atrophy. We need joined-up thinking that allows a screening programme to be developed in parallel as such medicines come over the horizon. Will the Minister confirm whether we will increase the scope of newborn screening in the UK or make changes to the UK National Screening Committee’s processes?
The framework also talks about Genome UK and the NHS genomic medicine service helping patients to get a final diagnosis more quickly, but it does not talk about how patients will access such services. The framework recognises that people with non-genetic conditions needs to be diagnosed through other means. We will need an action plan that sets out a realistic way to improve this, and we will need to demonstrate that the system becomes better at diagnosing everyone, not just those who are found through genome sequencing. Can the Minister confirm that that will be done?
Moreover, the framework does not talk about what happens after a diagnosis is delivered. We cannot abandon people after we have given them their diagnosis. My final point on diagnosis is this: what about the people who are stuck on the diagnostic odyssey? Do we know how many people have been waiting for five, 10 or 20 years for a diagnosis from the NHS? Will we track such people? Will we monitor whether everyone is receiving equitably the tests to which they are entitled? Will the Minister please comment on that?
The second priority of the framework is to increase awareness among healthcare professionals of rare diseases. People affected by rare conditions meet many healthcare professionals on their journey to find a diagnosis, and beyond while they live with their rare condition. For some it is a positive experience; for others it can be particularly challenging. This year, Genetic Alliance UK received an inquiry from an individual whose GP had told them that they could not possibly have the genetic condition that they were concerned about, because it is just too rare. Any individual clinician cannot be expected to know about all rare conditions, but they can be empowered to understand how to handle such cases. The framework does not address in detail how it will increase awareness among healthcare professionals of rare diseases. It does not provide details of how education programmes will be delivered, nor does it explain in detail how success will be measured. What measurements will be put in place to ensure learning for healthcare professionals in the NHS? Will there be a survey of experience now and in the future, to demonstrate improvement? Will that be included in the English action plan?
When clinicians do not engage with an individual who has a rare condition in order to understand their diagnosis and ensure that care is compatible with their needs, it can and has led to life-threatening situations. One way to prevent such situations from occurring is by providing rare disease patients with alert cards, which include information about the patient’s rare disease and any particular aspects of the treatment of that rare disease that need to be taken into account in providing care. In January 2018, NHS England promised that all rare disease patients in England would have access to a rare disease alert card. May I request an update from the Minister on alert cards specifically? How many rare disease patients have been issued with an alert card?
The third priority of the framework is to improve co-ordination of care. Many patients have numerous professionals involved in their care and therefore it is essential that there be co-ordination and communication among healthcare professionals, their patient and the family. The framework does not address how care co-ordination can be mainstreamed within rare condition care in the NHS. There are no details as to how the challenges of ensuring continuity of care during the complex transition between rare condition services might be addressed. Again, how will success be measured? Will there be outcome measures demonstrating increased care co-ordination services in the NHS, and will there be a survey now and in the future to demonstrate improvement in the experience of people living with rare and genetic conditions?
The final priority of the framework is to improve access to specialist care, treatment and drugs. Only about 200 medicines are specifically available for rare conditions, and fewer than that are available on the NHS now. Small patient populations and accelerated market authorisation mean that rare disease medicines can rarely have sufficient evidence to meet the expectations of health technology assessors in the UK. Few life-saving treatments are reaching rare disease patients, which means not only that the UK is falling behind other European nations in terms of treatments available, but that patients and their families can be left in the dark, unsure of what is next.
We have extremely frustrating situations such as that faced by families affected by phenylketonuria, who, 12 years after marketing authorisation for the drug, are not receiving access to Kuvan, despite the Prime Minister’s promises to work on the issue and the treatment being available in 24 European countries. Again, the framework does not talk about how success will be measured. Will there be outcome measures demonstrating increased access to specialist care, treatments and medicines, and will there be a survey now? Will the Minister comment on that?
My final point is this. Understanding the experiences and preferences of people affected by rare conditions is fundamental to providing care and treatment and to ensuring that support, information and services are available and targeted to meet needs. The national conversation on rare diseases on which the UK rare diseases framework is based does not reflect the whole rare disease community. It is important that the English action plan is created in consultation with a more diverse and inclusive group, so that we can understand and meet the needs of all those affected by rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions.
I want to finish by talking about something that happened yesterday. I want to mention Norman Clayton, who watched Prime Minister’s questions last week and heard me ask my question on access to Kuvan for those with PKU. Norman is 91 years old and was moved, after all these years, to contact NSPKU—the National Society for Phenylketonuria—and tell us about his daughter, Denise, who was born in 1958, before newborn screening, and whose PKU was diagnosed late. Despite the best efforts of Norman and his wife, Denise’s development suffered and she disappeared off the radar of the NHS. She still requires a huge amount of care, because her condition was not recognised from birth. That story speaks to so many rare diseases and to the need to get the implementation of this framework right.
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
We now move to a three-minute time limit, to help as many hon. Members as possible to participate.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing this important debate.
Motor neurone disease is a devastating and rapidly progressing neurological condition that leaves individuals unable to walk, talk, eat and, ultimately, breathe. It is a rare disease in this sense, because sadly one third of people die within one year of receiving their diagnosis, but at present one in 300 people will develop it in their lifetime.
There is currently no cure, but as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on motor neurone disease, I have had the privilege of hearing about the pioneering research that is under way to find effective treatments. Huge progress has already been made, particularly in terms of understanding which genes cause the disease and of subsequent pioneering gene therapy trials such as that conducted by Professor Chris McDermott at the University of Sheffield.
It would be disappointing, when scientific advancements are at their most promising, to see Government funding for MND research plateauing. Although charities have picked up the shortfall, this source of funding is under more pressure than ever because of covid-19. In this context, the Government’s recent announcement of the rare diseases framework provides a welcome and much needed opportunity. It is encouraging that one of the framework’s key priorities is to improve access to specialist care, treatment and drugs, and that one of its underpinning themes is to encourage and support pioneering research into rare diseases. Key to successfully delivering this will, in part, be the completion of ongoing NICE methods and a process review changing how we access new medicines. It will also come from close partnership between the devolved Administrations and the voluntary sector, which is already working to support pioneering research.
In the same vein, MND Scotland and My Name’5 Doddie Foundation are asking the Government to consider investing £50 million over five years to establish a virtual MND research institute. It would be designed to create a world-leading drug discovery and development programme, to establish a sustainable MND trials platform and to implement a rigorous clinical research programme. The institute and the funding would help the national and local delivery of this new framework’s key aims of improving the lives of those living with MND and embedding personalised care in the UK healthcare system. I thank the Government for the support they have already shown, and I look to them for more regarding the research institute.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) [V]
It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing the debate and on her excellent opening speech. The rare diseases framework is welcome, but in order to deliver on the vision it is important to reflect on the experiences of those with rare diseases over the past year.
I chair the all-party parliamentary group on muscular dystrophy, and last month our meeting brought together people living with muscle-wasting conditions, leading health professionals and charities representing relatives to discuss the impact of covid-19. It came after a month-long survey conducted by Muscular Dystrophy UK to assess the impact of covid-19 on people living with muscle-wasting conditions and their families and the effect on accessing healthcare services. There were over 400 survey responses and they were very concerning. The comments made at our APPG meeting backed up many of the survey’s findings.
We heard that the delivery of standard care had been put on hold and essential services were interrupted, and that it was proving very difficult to regain muscle strength after losing six months to a year of physiotherapy. Some had experienced diagnostic tests being put on hold as resources were diverted because of the pandemic and a number of clinical trials were also halted. Worryingly, the physical and mental impact of shielding has left many people reluctant to go out even to hospitals when restrictions are relaxed.
Our APPG also considered what might happen when restrictions are relaxed and we return to some kind of normal life. Infrastructure challenges for service provision still remain, and there is concern about if and when staff and resources redirected to covid-19 will return to neuromuscular services. Virtual clinics have had a positive impact and there are benefits to be taken forward of continuing these for some people, especially taking into account issues such as long travel times. However, not everything can be assessed or picked up virtually. Routine face-to-face appointments are still critical.
Members of the APPG are always grateful for the support of our secretariat Muscular Dystrophy UK, medical professionals and those with muscle-wasting conditions. On their behalf, I ask the Minister to outline how the action plans for the framework will learn from patient and health professional experiences during the pandemic, and will also shape the priorities for accessing essential specialist care and mental health support.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for securing this important debate on the challenges faced by people living with rare diseases. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak about phenylketonuria, which has been mentioned already, and to put on record my own concerns about access to treatment for this condition, including the drug Kuvan.
I am raising this issue on behalf of constituents who have been in contact with me about it. In particular, I am grateful to Leanne Barnett for meeting me to discuss the impact that PKU continues to have on her twin daughters, who were born with the condition, and on the family as a whole. I really appreciated gaining an understanding of the extraordinary challenges of living with rare diseases such as PKU, and I believe that Leanne’s case illustrates the problems that many people face, which are unacceptable problems in a modern society.
I will not go into the details of the condition, but we know that the main treatment available at the moment is a strict low-protein diet. For anyone who is a parent of young children, babies or toddlers, managing any diet is challenging, but managing a diet with low protein is extremely difficult. Everyday life becomes filled with anxiety, putting incredible strain upon the parents, who know that one mistake might cost the child their life or lead to brain damage. Leanne explained to me that
“PKU life can feel extremely isolating as the condition is so rare. It’s exhausting having to explain the condition and even then most people think it’s just a food allergy”.
She told me that managing her daughters’ diets is
“difficult and time consuming to manage and almost impossible to adhere to well enough for optimum treatment”.
She explained that, as her daughters grew, she would have to
“measure and monitor everything they eat, restricting the amount of natural protein they consume, which was really…stressful”.
This dietary treatment can also be incredibly costly for families, particularly if they are on a low income, which is a real barrier. The drug Kuvan, having been licensed to treat PKU back in 2008, has not been available to patients in the UK, except in limited circumstances.
NICE has published its preliminary assessment on the use of Kuvan, recommending its use for children up to the age of 18, which is welcome, but not necessarily its use for people over 18. I say to the Minister that this is a lifelong condition and therefore we need lifelong treatment of Kuvan on the NHS. Anything less than that will cause enormous distress for those young people with PKU who are making the transition to adulthood, so I urge the Government to consider placing Kuvan within the framework as a priority for the future.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Mrs Miller. I was not aware of the rare metabolic disorder phenylketonuria, or PKU, until my constituents with PKU explained that it prevents them from metabolising phenylalanine, or PHE, which is an amino acid in protein foods. The standard treatment is a low-PHE diet, removing almost all natural protein and replacing it with prescribed medical dietary proteins to ensure adequate nutrition.
The PKU dietary regime is very complex, very restrictive and very difficult to manage. I joined the all-party parliamentary group on phenylketonuria, which was formed by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), and became vice-chair. I congratulate her on securing another PKU debate today. The National Society for Phenylketonuria, a charity set up in 1973, is remarkable. It has no premises and no full-time staff, but is run by wonderful volunteers with personal experience of PKU.
Managing PKU is extremely demanding. Every meal, snack and drink must be planned in advance. People with PKU and their families spend on average 19 hours every week preparing their diet. Many of them have applied for personal independence payment, which is assessed on the basis of how much help is needed with ordinary daily living activities, one of which is managing therapy or monitoring a health condition.
The Department for Work and Pensions has not accepted that the PKU diet is a therapy, so many people, including my constituents, have been denied the daily living activities component of PIP, even though they need hours of help from relatives every week to manage their diet. However, in 2020 a tribunal decided that the PKU diet qualifies as a therapy, following a legal challenge by a 21-year-old man whose PIP application had been refused by the DWP. He appealed to the first-tier tribunal, but it agreed with the DWP that his PKU diet was not a therapy. He appealed again to the upper tribunal, which found that the first-tier tribunal should re-examine his case, because the reasons it gave for reaching its decision were not adequate. The case re-examination found that his PKU diet was a therapy under PIP criteria, because he needed more than 14 hours of help per week and therefore met the criteria to qualify for PIP, and should receive £87.65 per week. That is good news, but it remains to be seen whether this will govern future DWP decisions about PKU. I sincerely hope that it will, to help the brave PKU sufferers who struggle every minute of every day to live with such a challenging rare metabolic disorder.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing the debate. It is a welcome debate and an opportunity to discuss those rare diseases that, by their very nature, do not have the large advocacy organisations to speak about them. This week I received a mailshot from one of the UK’s leading cancer charities. While that is a welcome and worthwhile effort, rare diseases—those that affect fewer than one in 2,000 people—do not have those resources and it is important that we speak about them.
I welcome the publication of “The UK Rare Diseases Framework”, which has four priorities. I will speak briefly on priorities 2 and 4. Priority 2 is to increase awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals, which I think is crucial. I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on axial spondyloarthritis, which is not a rare disease—it affects one in 200 people—but the eight-year delay in diagnosis has been attributed, in part, to a lack of knowledge by healthcare professionals. I fully support any increased awareness of rare diseases.
Priority 4 is to improve access to specialist care, treatments and drugs. As others have said, I have seen that myself with phenylketonuria, which I had not heard of until I met the parents of Hurley, one of my youngest constituents. They came to see me to discuss Hurley’s condition. PKU affects fewer than one in 10,000 babies. As we have heard, it means that the body cannot process protein, which results in a severely restricted diet.
The drug Kuvan has been available but was not widely licensed despite promising results. I welcome the news that Kuvan is now available, but it is not available for over-18s. That causes understandable concerns not only for adults, but for those in their late teens who are approaching a point when their treatment will become unavailable. I will add my name to those calling for the wider licensing of Kuvan for those with PKU.
This is a welcome debate and there is a responsibility on all MPs to speak up for their constituents who have rare diseases, to make their case heard. I look forward to continuing to do so with colleagues.
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Order. After the next speaker, I will move to a two-minute time limit, in an attempt to get more speakers in.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist).
PKU is a disease that leaves people unable to break down protein. It can lead to severe brain damage. Kuvan is a life-changing drug that can help people cope with PKU. NICE’s decision to offer Kuvan only to patients up to the age of 18 is wrong. There is no miraculous cure for PKU when patients turn 18.
The transition to adulthood is a tough time already; 18-year-olds are moving away from school and often away from parental support, whether attending university, beginning an apprenticeship or starting a career. It is a difficult time. NICE’s decision strips young people of a life-changing drug when they are at their most vulnerable. Giving patients Kuvan and then taking it away turns an 18th birthday into a day of dread. Never mind the joy of a Greggs sausage roll, PKU patients cannot even grab a healthy salad or a vegetarian sandwich. The disease requires an exacting regulation of food intake.
I met Liam, a 20-year-old constituent who has PKU. The first thing that struck me was Liam’s mother bringing him bags of special ingredients. Careful planning is essential. Everything is homemade and all the ingredients have to be measured out, for Liam’s safety. Preparing the food is a full-time job. Liam has never had Kuvan and is in his second year at university studying policing. He is planned and worked hard to contribute to society, but he fears that without Kuvan this would not happen. There are hundreds like Liam who want to make a positive contribution. I asked him for his thoughts on the decision. He said:
“The overwhelming feeling right now is one of betrayal. We have spent 12 years fighting for this drug, seeing it within our sights, our hopes finally rising at the prospect of receiving such a life changing drug, only to have it snatched from us.”
I ask BioMarin and the Government to put people like Liam at the forefront of their decision making. People are being denied the quality of life that is possible and that they deserve.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Miller. It was also a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who opened this evening’s debate. She has been a tireless campaigner for those who suffer from phenylketonuria and I congratulate her on securing this important debate.
One in 10,000 babies across the United Kingdom is born with PKU. That rare inherited disease means that individuals cannot break down phenylalanine. If the condition is untreated, it can lead to damage of the brain and nervous system. Sadly, a number of my constituents suffer from the disorder, including, as I learned today, a three-month-old infant. I thank Samantha Parker, Kelly Thompson and Amy Duston, who suffer with PKU or have a child who does, for their engagement with me.
It was a bittersweet moment last month when NICE released its draft recommendation that, following discussion with the manufacturer of Kuvan, it could be used for children up to the age of 18. It was bittersweet because it means that as those children turn 18 they will face a cliff edge in their treatment. I fear that NICE has not fully considered the problem of an 18-year-old abruptly stopping treatment with Kuvan. The decision will lead to further difficulties down the line, and it does not address the treatment of adults with PKU.
I am hopeful on three counts for my constituents. I am optimistic that children will soon be able to access that life-changing drug, that NICE will reconsider the use of Kuvan for adults, and that as the exclusivity of Kuvan to BioMarin comes to an end it will become cheaper and more cost-effective as a treatment for all who suffer from PKU.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) [V]
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing the debate. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on life sciences and want to raise a couple of wider points. I am grateful to the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and the UK Bioindustry Association for advice.
We are all familiar with the figure of Sir John Bell on our television screens, but in the current circumstances would the Minister tell us a little about the status of the life sciences industrial strategy and sector deal? It seems that the industrial strategy has gone by the wayside. What is going on? Will she also tell us how the various initiatives, including the NICE methods review, the innovative medicines fund and the recently published commercial medicines framework will work together to support access to medicines for rare diseases?
There has been a long-running issue around the NICE process review in relation to the single technology appraisal programme, which many feel is not very suited to the specialised medicines world. It led to the highly specialised technologies programme, but there is a continuing gap between the two, and perhaps she can shed some light on that.
Professor Lucy Raymond was professor of medical genetics and neurodevelopment at the department of medical genetics in Cambridge, and has welcomed me on Rare Disease Day in previous years. She made a couple of important points, saying that despite the welcome work done by the 100,000 genomes project at such places as the Wellcome Sanger Institute, there are still long delays, and testing is limited by resources and NHS England funding. Secondly, there is the question of making sure there is sufficient access to clinical trials. Professor Raymond suggests that as we have a limited number of nationally funded genomic laboratories, it could be possible to introduce a statutory obligation to notify, which would produce a bigger group for clinical trials.
Finally, on the question of our relationship with the European Union, what progress has been made on developing a rare disease trial protocol?
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
NICE was established to determine cost-effectiveness, and it quickly became the best at this in the world. Given the pandemic, the importance of the life sciences sector to our country has never been clearer. If we want to retain our global reputation, however, NICE needs to alter the way it works. The rare diseases framework should be seen in this context. Its themes of pioneering research and being a global player are the right ones. I am encouraged that NICE recognises the challenges we face. That said, I am not yet convinced that NICE has got to the right place on the detail. Unless we get it right, we risk reducing the number of new medicines arriving to treat patients.
Within the framework, priority 4 is all about improving access to specialist treatments. The review has identified the need to change and update the discount rates, but less helpful are the suggestions in the current process review consultation on how we evaluate new health technologies. Essentially, there are two routes: the regular single technology appraisal process; and the highly specialised technology option, which is far more flexible. Medicines for rare diseases need that flexibility and the higher threshold for cost-effectiveness. If they do not meet the HST criteria, new technologies are stifled. NICE is risking needlessly complex and convoluted criteria that will not allow for transparency on why particular medicines are put into the programme. I hope it will register the concerns expressed by the ABPI and others.
The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency is talking about new pathways to licences. Such work needs to be joined up and supported by NICE’s processes. Early engagement is positive, but NICE must avoid premature decisions, including about the commercial aspects and pricing.
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
To ensure that we can get all Members in, the Minister has very generously given some of her time, so I hope that I can bring in every Member on the list.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing this important debate and on her excellent opening speech.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sickle cell and thalassaemia, I know that this subject is of great interest to people with thalassaemia. I will focus my speech on one of the four high-level priorities of the framework: improved access to specialist care, treatment and medicine. People with rare diseases say that the tantalising prospect that one day there will be a cure for the rare diseases affecting them is something that gives them hope and huge motivation, and that drives them to campaign passionately for the development, and then approval, of that medicine or therapy. When it comes to assessing the effectiveness of such drugs or treatments for rare diseases, however, the approach taken by NICE leaves a lot to be desired.
Recently, NICE gave a provisional negative appraisal to a ground-breaking gene therapy treatment that would have eliminated the need for the chronic treatment of many people with a severe form of thalassaemia. One of the contentious issues with NICE’s assessment has been the inflexibility of the arbitrary discount rates. The small number of people with rare diseases means that there is often insufficient evidence available to satisfy NICE’s assessors. I note that NICE has undertaken a methods review process in which the discount rate is a key area of potential reform, which I very much welcome. Additionally, I want to ask NICE to take greater account of the testimony from patients, because only by understanding patients’ lived experience can a committee properly assess the effectiveness of a drug or treatment.
For people with rare diseases such as thalassaemia, the approval of a drug or treatment can be the difference between life and death. It is imperative that we get this right, and that means things have to change quickly. We need the implementation of an action plan for the rare diseases framework, and we need it now.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mrs Miller. I wish to speak about neurofibromatosis, which for obvious reasons is more commonly known as NF1. As far as rare diseases go, it is pretty common. It affects one in 2,700 people born today, and it is more common than cystic fibrosis, Duchenne muscular atrophy and Huntingdon’s disease put together. I particularly want to echo the words of the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who made an excellent opening speech, and I really appreciate the opportunity to speak on these issues.
My focus is on diagnosis and monitoring. I came across NF1 because the Watts family in my constituency had a son, Chris, who had the condition since he was born. He was 31 when he took his life, having managed to pursue a career and live independently. The thing about NF1 is that it can be mild, but then it can become quite severe. He had a tumour that started to grow and was painful, but he was nevertheless told, “Nothing to worry about; it’s cosmetic.” Sadly, it ended up being malignant and he passed away. I think this illustrates the fact that we have a divided approach to NF1. It is seen as either complex or non-complex. For non-complex, there is very little monitoring of what happens, even though it can become complex, and there is very little treatment for the complex conditions other than a couple of specialist treatment centres in London and Manchester. However, there is no clear pathway for one assessment—the non-complex to the complex.
I am very grateful to Vanessa Martin at the Childhood Tumour Trust. They have set up some simple changes they would like to see, and I urge the Minster to engage with them to implement those changes.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]
Thank you, Mrs Miller, for chairing this debate. I thank the Minister for allowing us to get in.
Whatever the rare disease, it cannot be right that families are spending their time and energy fighting for treatments when they should be spending precious time with their children. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing this debate, and I echo the concerns about Kuvan, particularly the recommendation for its use only by children. One of my constituents whose daughter is living with PKU raised very legitimate concerns with me about the detrimental impact this could have on the mental health of children and teenagers whose lives are transformed by this drug, but know the clock is ticking towards it being taken away from them as they turn 18.
One of the themes underpinning the UK Rare Diseases Framework is patient voice, which the Department for Health and Social Care says is essential to its implementation, and I could not agree more. However, we must understand that there is a long way to go before families coping with the impact of rare diseases truly feel valued by the system. Gail and Matthew Rich from my constituency fought a long campaign that I supported to access Brineura on the NHS for their daughters Nicole and Jessica, who have CLN2 Batten Disease. Ahead of this debate, Gail told me:
“Patients and parents are not included or listened to enough, and children are suffering as a result of following an antiquated system which seems all about number-crunching and balancing figures rather than what is essential and morally acceptable.”
Those affected by rare diseases too often feel that they are struggling alone, so as we move from publication of the UK Rare Diseases Framework to the development of action plans, I urge the Minister to ensure that patient voices are truly heard, and positive outcomes reflect patient needs, not just those of the healthcare system.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
I, too, extend my congratulations to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing the debate and my gratitude to the Minister for the extra time.
The devolved nature of health and the need for proper planning and co-ordination between the nations of the UK have been brought into sharp focus as a result of the covid-19 pandemic. For people living with rare diseases, planning and co-ordination within health systems is key, as they face additional barriers to receiving a diagnosis and treatment, compared with those people who are suffering more common illnesses. In Wales, around 175,000 people will be affected by a rare disease at some point in their lives. A Welsh action plan that commits to proper joint working and collaboration between the four nations will be imperative in ensuring the best outcomes for people living with rare and genetic conditions in Wales.
That should involve data sharing between Wales’s Congenital Anomaly Register and Information Service and other rare diseases registries in the UK to help researchers identify non-genetic rare diseases that are not picked up through screening and genomic testing. It would also involve better cross-border co-ordination for care and treatment between Wales and the other nations, including education for clinicians and healthcare staff.
There is a question as to how the Welsh plan will integrate with health entities with a UK-wide remit, and challenges associated with decision making. I urge all national Governments to commit to publishing their action plans within 2021 so that we avoid delays in implementing the framework, to ensure that there is equitable treatment for those living with rare conditions.
I would like to mention my constituent Mark Edwards of Llanegryn, who has proved to be such an excellent ambassador for PKU, and to add my voice to the call for wider licensing of Kuvan.
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
We now move to the Front-Bench speeches. I call Marion Fellows.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
Thank you Mrs Miller. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Congratulations to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing this important debate; she is a doughty fighter.
Around 437,000 people in Scotland have a rare disease. It is therefore important that the NHS and other services provide this large and diverse patient population with the best possible care. The UK Government published the new UK Rare Diseases Framework in January, listing the priorities and underlying strategic themes and detailing how the four nations of the UK will address the challenges faced by those living with rare diseases.
As part of that ongoing commitment and with the support and advice of the rare disease strategic oversight group, the Scottish Government published their final progress report, which assesses the implementation and progress against the 51 commitments in the UK strategy and their own implementation plan, “It’s Not Rare to Have a Rare Disease”.
In developing a new action plan for Scotland, the Scottish Government will work closely with the rare disease community to ensure that their needs are appropriately reflected across wider Government policy too, including mental health and social care, that all the commitments are actionable and measurable, and that the patient voice remains at the heart of the new action plan. The Scottish Government will establish a new rare disease implementation board to oversee the action plan and further details will be in the action plan due to be published this year.
Recognising a gap in Scotland’s population health charter, work is now well under way and established on a national congenital anomalies register for Scotland—CARDRISS. Once fully established, it will register babies affected by a major structural or chromosomal anomaly or recognised syndrome.
While the congenital anomalies register is still being developed, a great benefit has already been seen just by linking historical datasets to provide, for the first time in Scotland, a record of congenital anomalies. The dataset and the register are beginning to help inform the planning of services for individuals and families affected by congenital anomalies and rare diseases. Once the register is live, it will also allow NHS Scotland to support the prevention of anomalies where possible, understand the impact of antenatal screening and support research.
The Scottish Government have also made great progress in delivering genomics medicine in Scotland. An allocation of £4.2 million over a two-year period by the Scottish Government supported the transition of genomic testing of inherited rare disease from the research setting into regular genetic testing services. As a result, more families have been able to get the right genetic test and receive an often long-awaited diagnosis, enabling them to get the support and treatment they need. A well-established network of clinicians and clinical scientists has been delivering evidence-based genetic testing for NHS Scotland patients for more than 30 years. Continuing advancements in genomics medicine improve a range of factors for rare disease patients, including diagnosis, access to treatment and co-ordination of care.
In Scotland, access to new medicines for rare, very rare and end-of-life conditions is significantly increased through a new ultra-orphan medicines pathway, introduced in October 2018, ensuring that those with the rarest diseases will get faster access to new treatment where appropriate. In the light of the benefits seen from the use of genomic medicine, the Scottish Government are increasing their investment in this area to £2.3 million, as announced in the new Scottish Budget. The investment will support the implementation plan and the plan will set out actions aligned with the three pillars in the strategy—diagnosis and personalised medicine, prevention and research. The Scottish Government will work closely with NHS Scotland laboratory genetic services to continue their approach to embed genomics in routine healthcare. Families and patients need to know that wherever they live in the UK, their Government are committed to the framework and to making it work. Does the Minister agree?
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing the debate, and on the case she made and her inspiring work championing those with rare diseases through the all-party parliamentary groups that she has chaired, currently the APPG on rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions and previously the APPG for phenylketonuria. She set out a very strong case. She started by saying that we have been here before. If we followed some of the suggestions that she made, it would make sure that we are not here forever.
I want to pick up on the point around childhood screening. I hope the Minister will address the points on the report and the outcome of the strategy. That learning is really important.
It is hard not to be struck by the wide range of conditions that colleagues raised—NF1, raised by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake); thalassaemia, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous); motor neurone disease, raised by the hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer); and muscle wastage, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon). The right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) and the hon. Members for Gedling (Tom Randall) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) raised PKU, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Neath (Christina Rees) and for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer). They made important points around welfare reform and the accessibility of Kuvan.
I hope that the Minister will also cover the more general points around NICE, made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) and on the life sciences sector deal, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner).
The debate tells us that while rare diseases are rare individually, collectively they can affect up to one in 17, so they are not rare at all. That is more than 3.5 million people in the UK. We will all know someone with a rare disease and we will all have constituents for whom we need to advocate. Rare diseases can be life-limiting and life-threatening. As was mentioned, three quarters of them affect children, and sadly more than 30% of children with a rare disease die before their fifth birthday. That is a truly heartbreaking statistic. With that in mind, we welcome the Government’s plans, but I want to test some of the detail.
On the first priority relating to diagnosis, I am keen to know what the Government’s plans are in greater detail. Will the scope of newborn screening in the UK be increased? Many countries screen for more than 20 conditions; indeed, Iceland and Italy screen for more than 40. Here in the UK, we screen for nine. Will that be revisited? How do the Government intend to measure success in diagnosis more broadly?
On the second priority, awareness, we need to skill up our wonderful healthcare professionals. I find that, whoever I speak to—especially those whose diseases were not diagnosed at a very young age—lack of awareness often prevented diagnosis and access to the correct treatment and care pathways. A couple of weeks ago I met a wonderful group of people from the Pernicious Anaemia Society who do great work for people struggling with pernicious anaemia. As we went around the room—virtually, of course—it was striking that everybody had been diagnosed with something different at some point, and often multiple things, incorrectly. What will we do about that? Do the Government intend for rare diseases to have a larger part in undergraduate courses? Will they be part of continuous professional development for already qualified medical professionals? More importantly, because there is no new money with this strategy, from where will the resourcing come to increase training and develop additional tools?
I want to touch on priorities three and four on improved co-ordination and access to care treatment and drugs. I will lean less on the latter, which was covered by others, but, on priority three, well co-ordinated care is crucial to patients and their families. Last year, a Genetic Alliance UK report found that more than 70% of respondents were responsible for their own or a family member’s care. That means reduced work—or giving up work—and reduced education and other opportunities that the rest of us take for granted. We need a family-centred holistic and equitable approach to care. It would not change everything, but it would make their lives much better. Again, I know the Government have committed to that, but how will they measure progress?
Finally, on understanding the action plans, health is devolved and it is important that we take the different nations approach, but when do Ministers intend to hear back? When do they think they will hear back? What will we do to ensure that the care pathways are properly co-ordinated?
I will finish there to give the Minister a chance to address all the points raised. This has been a great debate, and hopefully those with rare diseases, who do not always think their voices are heard, will feel that today they have been heard and not missed or forgotten. If we come together, we can do something really special in this space.
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I am afraid that I have been asked a huge number of questions. The shadow Minister just said he hoped I could answer them, but I am afraid that is not going to be possible. However, I will write to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and answer her questions in detail. I congratulate her on securing this important debate. I think someone described her as a doughty campaigner, and I pay tribute to her tireless work championing the rare disease community as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions. I will try to answer a few of the points in the short time that I have and I will write on the rest.
First, I will answer a more general point. Many hon. Members brought up the drug Kuvan, which is indicated to reduce blood phenylalanine levels in patients with phenylketonuria. PKU is an inherited metabolic disorder. NICE published draft guidance on 25 February recommending Kuvan for people with PKU who are under 18. Hon. Members have quite rightly acknowledged that when children and young people reach the age of 18, that is a problematic step.
NICE’s draft guidance is a huge step forward for children who stand to benefit from Kuvan as a treatment, but I understand that it will be disappointing for adults. It is important to stress that this is not the final guidance. NICE will carefully consider all comments received during the recent consultation. The Government encourage the company to continue working with NICE, NHS England and NHS Improvement to ensure that Kuvan is priced affordably, so that more patients may benefit. That is a sort of round-robin answer to a number of the questions that have been asked.
I would like to pick up the first question that the hon. Member for Blaydon asked about the report to be published on the outcomes of the UK strategy for rare diseases. We have published yearly updates on the UK strategy for rare diseases implementation plan. Those updates highlight areas of progress and ongoing action against the commitments described in the strategy. The Department is constantly engaging stakeholders to learn what has worked in the strategy and the implementation plan.
We are constantly engaging and looking for areas of improvement, and we took the learnings into consideration when we developed the UK rare diseases framework. The framework builds on the previous strategy, outlining clear, concise and actionable priorities that were developed in close collaboration with the rare diseases community, including patients themselves.
The shadow Minister asked about screening newborns in the UK. As part of our screening improvement programme, the Department is considering how better to integrate targeted screening of high-risk groups in our population-based screening programmes. The chief medical officers of the UK have established a screening advisory working group to consider the scope and remit of the single screening advisory body proposed by Professor Sir Mike Richard. We have committed to making better use of technology to develop a more personalised screening offer, including important genetic testing, inter-screening and diagnostics. In the 2019 report, “Generation genome and the opportunities for screening programmes”, the UK National Screening Committee concluded that there is “clear potential” for genomics in the testing for many of the conditions currently included in the blood spot test. I think that all of us here today would agree on one fact: screening and medical science are moving forward at a rapid pace.
Only last month, we marked Rare Diseases Day. We have heard many touching stories today from Members, but last month we also heard many touching stories and how rare diseases, including PKU, can have an impact on patients and on their family members. As many Members of this House know, while rare diseases are individually rare, they are collectively common: one in 17 people is affected by rare disease at some point in their lifetime. In the UK, that amounts to more than 3.5 million, which is a significant group of people.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Blaydon would like to respond to the debate, so I will end. We will write to her with detailed responses to her thoughtful and detailed questions. I hope she will be able to share that information with the rest of the people who have spoken.
Liz Twist
I thank the Minister and all hon. Members who took part in the debate. The diseases we have mentioned—motor neurone disease, muscular dystrophy, PKU, thalassaemia, neurofibromatosis and Batten disease —are all important, but there are so many more rare diseases that we could have mentioned. I look forward to the Minister’s detailed reply, and I will certainly circulate it to all those Members who have taken part today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the implementation of the UK Rare Diseases Framework.
Written Statements
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Strengthening the Union and Intergovernmental Relations
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
Today I am providing an update on the UK Government’s work on the Union and intergovernmental relations (IGR) with devolved Administrations. These are:
A progress update on the joint IGR review.
The inaugural quarterly report on the UK Government’s engagement with the devolved Administrations.
The Dunlop review into UK Government Union capability, alongside our response to Lord Dunlop which sets out UKG’s progress in implementing recommendations.
Copies of all these documents have been laid in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament and are available on gov.uk.
The UK Government are steadfast in their commitment to protect and promote the hundreds of years of shared history, beliefs and interests embodied in our Union, the most successful political and economic partnership the world has seen.
Our response to the coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the importance of the broad shoulders of the UK Government in supporting the whole country. It has shown we are at our strongest when we come together as one United Kingdom. Together we are better able to tackle big problems, from defending our borders and fighting national cyber security threats, to delivering the furlough scheme to protect our jobs, and being first to secure the covid-19 vaccine for citizens across the UK.
Today demonstrates the UK Government commitment to putting the foundations in place for our covid-19 recovery. For our family of nations to thrive—for the Union of the UK to prosper—the UK Government will continue to work smarter for people in every part of the country, building back better and stronger from covid-19 and able, outside the European Union, to target money where it is most needed.
Progress update on the IGR review
The IGR review is a joint review by the UK Government and devolved Administrations to make sure intergovernmental structures are fit for purpose. This publication is the product of months of detailed analysis of how the UK Government and devolved Administrations can work together effectively, reconciling a range of goals and aspirations from all parts of the UK. It details our ambitious and forward-looking approach to future IGR, ensuring an effective culture of collaboration and co-operation, protecting the integrity of our Union and shaping our common future. Where discussions are ongoing, the UK Government suggested position is included in square brackets. We are committed to continuing discussions with our devolved Administration colleagues on these areas after the May elections.
Work has already begun to implement these measures across UK Government Departments, allowing this improved collaboration between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to begin as soon as possible. We will continue to reflect on these arrangements to ensure they remain fit for purpose.
The UK Government and devolved Administrations continue to work together on the common frameworks programme. This has resulted in further frameworks being agreed, including Food Compositional Standards and Labelling; Blood Safety and Quality; Organs, Tissues and Cells Safety and Quality; and Public Procurement, which have been laid in Parliament.
Quarterly report on the UK Government engagement with the devolved Administrations
Our first quarterly report on the UK Government’s engagement with the devolved Administrations reflects the value the Government place on the core principles of transparency of intergovernmental relations. Due to the pre-election periods in Wales and Scotland, we are publishing this information early, covering a shorter period of two months; the next quarterly report will be published in July 2021.
This report predominantly provides information from all UK Government Departments on their participation in intergovernmental meetings with the devolved Administrations in January and February 2021. It is supplemented with a summary of engagement which has taken place since July 2019. The report will support the UK Parliament’s capacity to scrutinise our role in intergovernmental relations, so that parliamentarians can help guide our approach to strengthening our Union, while also demonstrating our commitment to transparency of IGR.
Dunlop review into UK Government union capability
We are very grateful to Lord Dunlop for his independent and expert assessment and analysis of the UK Government operations in the areas of devolution and IGR. We have carefully studied all of his recommendations and his report has provided the impetus for a wide-ranging programme of reform that I and my colleagues will continue to pursue vigorously.
[HCWS885]
North Sea Oil and Gas and Clean Energy Transition
(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 I am delighted to announce a landmark agreement between the Government and the oil and gas industry—the North sea transition deal—to support the industry’s transition to clean, green energy and secure future of high-skilled oil and gas workers and the supply chain. This follows our commitment to securing a deal in the 2019 Conservative party manifesto and is the first of its kind to be agreed by a G7 nation.
The offshore oil and gas industry has been a major British industrial success story. For decades, the sector has strengthened our energy security, generated significant tax revenue to fund our public services, and currently supports around 260,000 jobs across the UK. From the Shetland Islands and Aberdeen to Teesside and the Humber, the industry is critical to the health of local economies across the country.
In the energy White Paper, we have committed to work with industry to make the UK continental shelf a net zero basin by 2050. The oil and gas industry will have a critical role in maintaining our energy security through this transition. Domestically produced gas still met approximately 46% of the country’s supply of gas in 2019 and the Climate Change Committee forecasts our continued need for fossil fuels for years to come.
The North sea transition deal between the UK Government and the oil and gas industry will support workers, businesses, and the supply chain as it transitions to a net zero future by harnessing the industry’s existing capabilities, infrastructure, and private investment potential to exploit new and emerging technologies such as hydrogen production, carbon capture, usage and storage and offshore wind—as well as offshore decommissioning.
Through the deal, the oil and gas sector and the Government will work together over the long term to deliver the skills, innovation and new infrastructure required to decarbonise North sea production, as well as other carbon-intensive industries. Not only will the deal support existing companies to decarbonise in preparation for a net zero future, but it will also attract new industrial sectors to base themselves in the UK, develop new export opportunities for British businesses, and secure new high-value jobs.
Through the package of measures, the deal is expected to support up to 40,000 jobs across the supply chain and is expected to cut pollution by up to 60 million tonnes by 2030 including 15 million tonnes from oil and gas production on the UK continental shelf—the equivalent of annual emissions from 90% of the UK’s homes.
The North Sea Transition Deal
Delivery of the new green industrial revolution will require a strong partnership between the Government, regulators and industry. This deal sets out a template for that partnership and includes an ambitious plan to meet stretching greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. The deal aims to support and anchor the expert supply chain that has built up around oil and gas in the UK, to both safeguard and create new high-quality jobs.
The deal includes:
The sector setting early targets to reduce emissions by 10% by 2025 and 25% by 2027, and it has committed to cut emissions by 50% by 2030. This will be supported by joint work to address the commercial and regulatory barriers to electrification of offshore platforms to realise these targets.
Joint Government and industry investment of up to £16 billion by 2030 to reduce carbon emissions. This includes up to £3 billion to replace fossil fuel-based power supplies on oil and gas platforms with renewable energy, up to £3 billion on carbon capture usage and storage, and up to £10 billion for hydrogen production.
By 2030, the sector will voluntarily commit to ensuring that 50% of its offshore decommissioning and new energy technology projects will be provided by local businesses, helping to anchor jobs to the UK. This will be supported by the appointment of an industry supply chain champion who will support the coordination of local growth and job opportunities with other sectors, such as carbon capture, usage and storage and offshore wind.
A 60Mt reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, including 15Mt through the progressive decarbonisation of UKCS production over the period to 20301.
Support for up to 40,000 direct and indirect supply chain jobs in decarbonising UKCS production and the CCUS and hydrogen sectors.
Today’s announcement delivers on the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan and builds on our ambitious energy White Paper, which set out how the Government would support the decarbonisation of offshore oil and gas production while promoting opportunities for the sector to transition to clean energy.
To aid the transition to a green economy, today’s package follows the recent Budget in which the Chancellor committed to funding that targets the oil and gas sector and supports businesses to develop green energy. This includes up to £27 million for the Aberdeen energy transition zone to transform the area into a green energy hub and up to £5 million additional funding for the global underwater hub based in Aberdeen to open up opportunities for the city to become a global hub for underwater engineering, including in offshore wind and hydrogen—further supporting the creation of green jobs and helping the transition to net zero.
I will place a copy of the North sea transition deal in the Libraries of both Houses.
The Review of Future Licensing of Offshore Oil and Gas
We committed in September 2020 to reviewing policy on licensing for North sea oil and gas to ensure it was compatible with our climate change objectives. This included assessing whether licensing for new oil and gas exploration and production should continue in its current form, as well as the scope for formalising any aspects of our existing processes to provide additional assurances.
Noting the ongoing role of oil and gas on our path to net zero, the Government will introduce a new climate compatibility checkpoint on future oil and gas licensing rounds to ensure they are compatible with wider climate objectives, including net zero emissions by 2050. This checkpoint will use the latest evidence of the time, looking at the UK’s demand for oil and gas, the sector’s projected production levels, the increasing prevalence of clean technologies such as offshore wind and carbon capture, and the sector’s continued progress against its ambitious emissions reduction targets.
Design of this checkpoint will be completed by the end of 2021, before the next oil and gas licensing round. The Oil and Gas Authority has already indicated that that it will not be running a new licensing round this year. In parallel, the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning is commencing work on a new offshore energy strategic environmental assessment which will underpin future licensing rounds.
Government response to the public consultation “Aligning UK international support for the clean energy transition”
At the Climate Ambition summit on 12 December 2020, the Prime Minister announced that the UK will end new direct financial or promotional support for the fossil fuel energy sector overseas, other than in limited circumstances, as soon as possible. A consultation on this and how to accelerate growth in UK clean energy exports was subsequently held until 8 February 2021.
Following the consultation, the Government will no longer provide support for the fossil fuel energy sector overseas from 31 March 2021. This will include UK Export Finance support, international aid funding, and trade promotion for new crude oil, natural gas and thermal coal projects.
To support the UK’s energy sector in making this transition, we will provide a one-year exemption for small and medium-sized enterprises, to ensure the most vulnerable firms are given time to adjust; provide a new “transition export development guarantee”, so that oil and gas focused companies with credible transition plans can benefit from UK Export Finance’s working capital support to achieve these plans; and publish a comprehensive and transparent description of the exemptions underpinning the policy shift, to provide clarity and certainty for business and civil society.
This balanced approach will make the UK an even stronger and more credible international partner to the growing number of countries who are seeking to make the transition to a cleaner future. The UK will build on the implementation of the policy shift by working with likeminded partners to make similar commitments, including through our G7 and COP26 presidencies.
1The 60Mt also includes emissions savings from CCUS and hydrogen already set out in the PM’s 10-point plan.
[HCWS879]
Climate-related Financial Disclosures Consultation
(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)
Today, the Government published their consultation on proposals requiring mandatory climate-related financial disclosures by publicly quoted companies, large private companies and limited liability partnerships (LLPs).
In November 2020, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that in order to accelerate progress on climate risk disclosures, the UK will move towards mandatory Taskforce on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) across major segments of the UK economy by 2025, with a significant portion of requirements to be introduced by 2023. This will make the UK the first G20 country to make TCFD-aligned disclosures mandatory across the economy.
TCFD is an industry-led initiative which seeks to develop recommendations for climate-related financial disclosures. In 2017, the TCFD launched its recommendations, which set out how companies of any size, and in any sector or geography, could better manage and disclose their climate-related financial risks. Our proposed regulations will require companies to disclose information in line with the four pillars of TCFD: governance, strategy, risk management and metrics and targets.
High-quality disclosure of how organisations will manage the material financial risks and opportunities arising from climate change will improve transparency and encourage better informed pricing and capital allocation. As a result, and over time, TCFD-aligned disclosures will support investment decisions aligned with our transition to net zero. Our ambitious proposals will ensure the UK is leading the way ahead of COP26, where we will have an opportunity to encourage other countries to replicate our action.
I will place a copy of the consultation document in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS880]
Public Spending: Devolved Administrations
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
On 15 February the UK Government announced an additional £2.1 billion for the devolved Administrations through the Barnett formula to support people, businesses and public services affected by coronavirus. This was on top of the £16.8 billion that had previously been guaranteed. £million Scottish Government Welsh Government Northern Ireland Executive Resource DEL excluding depreciation 873.510 497.557 238.054 Capital DEL (general) 236.845 137.130 74.964 Capital DEL (Financial Transactions) 41.532 25.530 14.039 Total DEL 1,151.888 660.218 327.057 £million Scottish Government Welsh Government Northern Ireland Executive Resource DEL excluding depreciation 39,210.215 17,923.931 14,974.531 Capital DEL (general) 4,836.545 2,837.569 1,591.874 Capital DEL (Financial Transactions) 612.198 313.696 214.816 Total DEL 44,65.8957 21,075.195 16,781.222
In recognition of the exceptional circumstances and in response to calls for flexibility, the devolved Administrations were given the option to carry forward any of the £2.1 billion into 2021-22 on top of their existing facilities to transfer funding between financial years.
The devolved Administrations have now confirmed they wish to carry forward the following amounts. They will receive this funding at Main Estimates 2021-22.
The devolved Administrations’ 2020-21 funding as at Supplementary Estimates 2020-21 is therefore being reduced by the same amount.
In line with the Statement of Funding Policy, the Welsh Government are also switching £501 million from Resource DEL to Capital DEL (general).
This means that revised 2020-21 funding is as follows:
[HCWS882]
Flags
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
The Union flag will now be flown on UK Government buildings every day unless another flag is being flown—acting as a visual symbol of the UK’s union, heritage and pride.
Currently, Union flags are only required to be flown on all UK Government buildings in England, Wales and Scotland on designated days, such as the Queen’s birthday.
The changes will apply to all Government buildings across the UK, with the Union flag being flown by default if nothing else is being flown, such as another national flag of the UK, or a county flag or other flags to mark civic pride. The guidance will also encourage other buildings, such as councils, to follow this example, where they have a flagpole and wish to fly a flag.
The Union flag is the national flag of the United Kingdom, and it is so called because it embodies the emblems of the three constituent nations united under one sovereign—the Kingdoms of England and Wales, of Scotland and of Northern Ireland. It serves as a reminder of our shared history and union. Flags other than the Union, such as national flags of the constituent nations of the United Kingdom, the armed forces flag, the Commonwealth flag, county and other local flags, can be flown on non-designated days.
We will also cut red tape to allow dual flagging—where two flags can be flown on one pole. This will allow organisations to highlight local and national identities, for example by flying a Middlesex county flag alongside the Union flag in Middlesex, or the Saltire alongside the Union flag in Scotland Where organisations have two flag poles, they can fly the Union flag alongside another flag—for example, flying the Saltire alongside the Union flag in Scotland.
The Union flag must always be flown in the superior position.
Following our departure from the European Union, planning regulations (in England) introduced by the then Government in 2007 that allow the EU flag to be flown on public buildings without securing express consent in the normal way will also be removed.
Instead, new “deemed consent” will be granted for the NHS flags. This will allow for NHS flags to be flown, without the need for express consent—alongside the Union flag.
The changes will help champion the UK’s national identities and strengthen our shared pride in the Union through the institutions that define Britain.
This guidance is published today and will apply from the summer.
The attachment can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-03-24/HCWS883/.
[HCWS883]
UK Health Security Agency
(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)
I wish to inform the House of progress in establishing the UK health security agency and the appointment of its leadership.
In August 2020, the Government announced its intention to create a new body, bringing together the at-scale operational response capability of NHS Test and Trace, the joint biosecurity centre’s intelligence and analytical capability and the public health science and health protection expertise of Public Health England into an organisation focused wholly on protecting people from external threats to this country’s health.
From 1 April, we will formally establish the new UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA). The UKHSA will be this country’s permanent standing capacity to prepare for, prevent and respond to threats to health.
The UKHSA will plan for the risk of future infectious disease pandemics and other major health threats, maintaining this focus both during a crisis and in better times. It will work with partners around the world and lead the UK’s global contribution to global health protection research. The new agency will prevent threats by deploying the full weight of our analytic and genomic capability, on infectious diseases and beyond, and will hold responsibility for our health security scientific capabilities including those at Porton Down and Colindale.. It will respond to the threats we face with speed and scale, including terrorist threats to health, another pandemic or environmental hazards.
The agency will operate with local and national partners to deliver its brief, including building a strong partnership with local government and directors of public health. It will work with the national public health bodies for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, continuing strong collaborative work such as the joint biosecurity centre to support health security for the whole of the UK.
UKHSA will be empowered to hire the very best team possible from around the world. Its chief executive will be Dr Jenny Harries, who has performed brilliantly during this crisis. Dr Harries previously led the public health response to the Novichok poisonings, she played a critical part in the UK’s Ebola response, and last year, as deputy chief medical officer, she delivered the shielding programme which is both incredibly sensitive and has been superbly delivered. Dr Harries’ distinguished career as both a public health physician, and crucially, as a public health leader, make her impeccably qualified for this role.
Ian Peters will be UKHSA’s Chair. Under Ian’s leadership as chairman of Barts Health NHS Trust, the trust has built an impressive track record in life sciences with the combination of private sector, academic and Government capability that is so important to delivering excellence at scale. Ian brings his extensive experience of leadership in the public and private sector to this task, including several years as managing director of British Gas. Both Dr Harries and Mr Peters will be appointed from 1 April.
To protect operational continuity and provide for necessary staff consultations, the transition of responsibilities and capabilities from Public Health England and NHS Test and Trace into the new agency will take place over the coming months, with the UKHSA fully operational from October 2021. Until this date, PHE and NHS Test and Trace will continue to deliver their existing functions.
I will provide a further update in due course on the Government’s wider plans for public health reform, including on arrangements for promoting and improving health.
[HCWS884]
Sale of a Credit Guarantee Finance Loan
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
In 2005 the Department of Health, as it was then, made two loans under a policy created by HM Treasury called credit guarantee finance, one for the private finance initiative scheme at the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust for the Bexley oncology wing and the other for the PFI scheme at the Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust for the redevelopment of the Queen Alexandra Hospital. The purpose of the policy was to reduce the financing costs of private finance initiative deals and improve their value for money. An assessment at the time concluded that these objectives had been met.
It has now been agreed that the Department of Health and Social Care will sell its entire interest in the credit guarantee finance loan which was used for the PFI scheme at Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth.
The credit guarantee loan which was used for the PFI scheme at Bexley oncology wing, at the Leeds was repaid in full in 2017
[HCWS881]
Specialty and Associate Doctors’ Contract Agreement
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
I am pleased to confirm that specialty and associate specialist doctors have backed a multi-year pay and contract reform agreement.
This is a diverse group of doctors who play a vital role in delivering high-quality care within healthcare teams and we recognise the particular issues they have faced. This agreement focuses on fixing long-standing concerns around equality of pay and terms and conditions for this group of staff. The agreement will improve their experiences of work and provide more opportunities to progress in their careers, in return for contractual changes which will deliver improvements to NHS services.
The deal will give around 10,000 doctors the option to transfer to new contracts. The contract changes prioritise doctors’ physical and mental wellbeing through introducing new limits on work in unsocial hours and additional annual leave to improve equity with other staff groups. The new pay scales will have fewer progression points, enabling faster progression to the top of the pay scale, heeding the recommendations from the gender pay gap in medicine review. The introduction of a new senior grade will expand opportunities for career progression for specialty doctors.
Over recent years we have sought major contractual reforms right across the NHS workforce. Public sector pay must deliver value for money for the taxpayer and this agreement commits investment in return for reforms which will help improve recruitment and retention, enhance morale and boost capacity and productivity.
This agreement delivers on the commitment in the NHS People Plan to make these roles more attractive and fulfilling and will help us retain more talent to ensure our NHS is there for everyone in the years to come.
[HCWS877]
New Plan for Immigration
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
We have today published the “New Plan for Immigration”—the Government’s landmark programme to deliver the first comprehensive overhaul of the asylum system in decades.
These reforms are explained in more detail in our policy statement, which we have published today. To inform the proposals set out and ensure we can deliver effective change across the system, we have also launched a public consultation and run a wide-reaching engagement process. We will use this opportunity to listen to a wide range of views from stakeholders and sectors as well as members of the public.
The policy statement and consultation are available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/new-plan-for-immigration
[HCWS881]
Roads
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Since becoming Secretary of State for Transport, I have shared the concerns of many regarding All Lane Running (ALR) motorways. Any question about safety on our road network must be taken with the upmost seriousness. Therefore, one of my first actions as Secretary of State was to commission a stocktake to set out recommendations to raise the bar on safety. While the evidence has suggested that ALR motorways are in most ways as safe as, or safer than, conventional ones, I am determined to go further and ensure that they are the safest roads in Britain.
To this end, in March 2020,1 announced a package of 18 measures, costing £500 million, including the faster rollout of a radar-based stopped vehicle detection (SVD) across the ALR motorway network.
Earlier this year, I asked for a one-year-on report from Highways England detailing its progress in delivering the 18-point action plan and identifying actions that can be delivered ahead of schedule. I asked for this by 12 March 2021.
Highways England has now provided my Department with that anniversary report, and work is rapidly being completed to assess it, including stocktake actions, and to establish next steps. The report will be published by summer, once I am assured that the proposals are sufficiently robust.
The publication of this report will not, however, mark the end of the process, and I am determined to ensure all possible actions to make ALR motorways safer still are explored. I have therefore ordered my officials to continue to work with Highways England on developing possible future options, working closely with road safety groups and parliamentarians, as well as the Transport Select Committee, which currently has an active inquiry into this issue. I am interested to receive its final report.
The latest safety evidence drawn from data and analysis of the 2019 STATS19 official statistics has been produced by Highways England and will be contained within its report. There has been considerable public and media interest in understanding motorway accident and fatality data and I have commissioned the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) to independently review the data to provide further analytical assurance and ensure that the conclusions arrived at are robust. The ORR is the independent statutory monitor of Highways England and its management of the strategic road network.
Within this role, the ORR already scrutinises Highways England’s delivery of the smart motorway stocktake actions, and its performance against its road safety KPIs. However, I believe there may be scope to go further. In addition to asking ORR to undertake an independent review of the available safety evidence on ALR motorways, my officials will explore what further independent scrutiny may be appropriate.
Ensuring our roads are safe for those who use them is my top priority.
[HCWS886]
Grand Committee
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. 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. The time limit for this debate is five hours.
Housing Strategy
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Archbishop of Canterbury
That the Grand Committee takes note of the report Coming Home by the Archbishops’ Commission on Housing, Church and Community, and the case for setting out a long-term housing strategy.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, I am very grateful to the usual channels for permitting this debate and to all noble Lords who are taking part. I express my sadness at the beginning at the sudden death of Lord Greaves, whose voice in this area, as in so many others, especially those involving the day-to-day concerns of people, will be deeply missed.
The Archbishop’s annual debate is normally held every year, just before Christmas—although I am not sure that it counts as a Christmas present. Due to the pandemic and other issues, it has not happened for a couple of years. You may have thought you were spared but that is not so, for, like Jairus’s daughter, the debate is not dead but was only sleeping. And when better to resurrect it than just before Easter?
While the rollout of the vaccine is a light at the end of a tunnel, people have experienced hardship in many different ways. I pray for noble Lords and parliamentary staff who have suffered in this time of turmoil, for those who have lost loved ones and for those who have felt afraid and isolated this year.
The Archbishops’ Commission on Housing, Church and Community is independent and comprised of people with very different views: academics, theologians, industry experts, people of faith and no faith, and people of different political persuasions. It has published what I believe, having not been on the commission, to be a brilliant, seminal piece of work, titled Coming Home: Tackling the Housing Crisis Together. It has not shied away from challenging the Church before it has challenged anyone else. I am very grateful for the strongly positive reception that this report has been given by the housing industry and by many across the Church. We have been overwhelmed by letters and offers of support from every part of the housing world, including developers, housing associations, charities and far beyond.
The way we have lived over the past year has shown us how important our homes are to our lives. Where we live is vital for our health, well-being, opportunities and flourishing. Our homes are the places from which we go out to grow and to which we return to feel secure and safe.
When we launched this commission, we knew that the focus had to be not simply on building more houses but on better communities. We wanted to build a positive vision for housing, one that has been lacking in our English national understanding for many decades and that has a holistic understanding of being human at its heart. I say “English” because two of the devolved Governments are ahead of us. Scotland’s Housing to 2040 strategy deals with the number of affordable homes, the number for social rent, zero carbon, housing standards and existing stock. The Future Wales strategy deals with co-locating homes, jobs and services, zero carbon, improving the well-being and health of communities, new priority areas for green energy, affordable housing and remote working.
As the Church of England, we have a major role in realising the vision we are proposing. Because of history, we are one of the largest landowners in the country. Collectively, we hold over 200,000 acres of land and a large stock of historic and many other buildings. But more than that, with 12,500 parishes and 18,000 clergy, we have a committed and continuing presence in every community in this country.
We incarnate Christ’s promise of love and hope, not just through our worship services but by offering food banks, debt advice centres, night shelters and so much more—worship reaches people online. There is precedent also for the Church’s involvement in housing; from almshouses to housing associations, it has for centuries been involved in the provision of decent places to live. We do not do this just to be nice—we are not an NGO with a pointy roof—but because we believe that Christ commands us to love our neighbour.
The Church can and should make a substantial contribution to the housing crisis, using our resources well to serve others. That is why I have submitted a motion to the Church of England’s General Synod, calling on it to recognise that
“addressing housing need and strengthening communities is an integral part of the mission and ministry of the Church of England”.
I am delighted that Bishop Guli Francis-Dehqani, the new Bishop of Chelmsford, has agreed to take up the role of bishop for housing, leading a national executive team in the next stage of the housing commission’s work. I look forward to her joining us in your Lordships’ House this summer.
That is also why the report has challenged the Church Commissioners, part of the Church of England, to consider how the 92,000 acres of land they own can best be used to resolve our housing crisis. It is why we have mapped, through Knight Frank, all Church-owned land across the nation and why we are endeavouring to remove every obstacle that currently stands in the way of parochial church councils, trusts and dioceses when they attempt to use their land well. We are prepared to put our money where our mouth is—some might say that we first have to remove our foot.
The commission has developed five values as a framework for building good housing which enables and encourages strong communities, each value beginning with S. Good housing should be “sustainable”: it should not undermine or harm our precious planet; we are called to be stewards of the Earth. It should be “safe”: our homes must be places where we feel safe, with security and privacy from unwanted intrusion by people, pests, danger or disease. It should be “stable”: our homes should be places where we can put down roots and plan for the future, and where we can build lives, families and communities. It should be “sociable”: we need to be able to offer hospitality to friends, family and neighbours, with public spaces which create strong community bonds. It should be “satisfying”: good houses should be a delight to return to, giving us pleasure and pride, both to live in and to look at. In summary, good homes, affordable for all. Those five values have resonated strongly across the industry, including with those with no connection to faith.
“Good homes, affordable for all”—far too many people live in housing that falls well short of that aim. The National Housing Federation records that 8 million people in England live in unsuitable, unaffordable or unsafe housing. Among them are more children than were in such housing when Ken Loach made “Cathy Come Home” in the 1960s. This number is likely to have risen as a result of the pandemic. This is not just one crisis: housing need looks very different depending on who you are and where you live. It affects many of us, but not equally. The brunt is borne by those who are in the most vulnerable positions—the poorest among us and often those with no voice. It is a national scandal.
My first question is this: will the Government and opposition parties agree with this definition of good housing, as set out by these five values? As a nation, we need an agreed vision, in the same way that we have one for the NHS which is beyond politics.
There is also a sixth S, which runs through this report and needs to be at the core of everyone’s response to the housing crisis: sacrifice. No one, not even government, can solve this on their own. Historic failure under all parties shows that. The Church wants to partner with other institutions on the ground: faith groups, local government, charities, housing associations, developers and anyone else who wants to work with us.
But to transform our housing landscape, there is a need for sacrifice, which will be required from all of us, whether we are individuals inclined to nimbyism, organisations and companies whose primary concern is profit or Governments whose priorities are influenced by short-term election cycles. As the report says, now is the time for a “bold, coherent, long-term” housing vision, which focuses on those who are facing the greatest need and which can be supported by all parties—good housing, affordable for all.
The housing commission makes two key points: first, it defines good housing through the five values; secondly, it calls for a long-term non-partisan strategy to deal with the crisis. The mess we find ourselves in is not the fault of any one Government of the left or right; it is more than 40 years in the making. Simply building more houses will not solve the problem. We cannot build them fast enough to make any meaningful impact on prices and, realistically, what Government would intentionally reduce house prices and thus the housing wealth of a large part of the electorate? Even if they did, electoral cycles are not long enough to incentivise long-term strategic thinking.
The commission has recommended implementing a 20-year strategy for housing to cover both new and existing homes, with a particular focus on those in the most need. So will the Government and opposition parties commit to developing such a strategy, and will they agree to work together to deliver the housing that people in this country so desperately need and deserve—good homes, affordable for all?
In the short term, our social security system, which supports those with no other way to cope, must urgently be reviewed. Families, both out of and in work, are being forced to choose between eating, heating and paying their rent. Also in the short term, we need to ensure longer-term security of tenure, introduce an explicit duty of care on landlords and improve the quality of temporary accommodation. The Grenfell tragedy reminds us of the urgency of removing unsafe cladding from buildings, without the costs falling on leaseholders. The vote in the other place to overturn your Lordships’ clear amendment on this subject was, frankly, a great tragedy and grave error. I will leave it to my right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester to comment further.
As for the long term, we must build more homes—no one questions that—but there is no use building more homes if people cannot afford to buy or rent them, and then cannot afford to live in them. Affordability is as important as availability. We need a definition of “affordable” that is pegged to income levels and not based on market rates. A long-term strategy for housing needs targets for affordability that mean affordable in the sense that most people mean it—not discounted to market rate but still unobtainable for most. The noble Lord, Lord Best, has done important work on affordability with the Affordable Housing Commission, and I greatly look forward to his contribution today.
In previous Written Questions to the Minister on this topic, I asked what assessment the Government have made of the level of household income that would be needed to afford a home defined as “affordable”, and what assessment they have made of whether their target for the number of affordable homes that they want to see built is sufficient to meet the demand for such homes. The Minister graciously answered, but he did not describe how the cost of housing relates to household income, nor give the overall numbers of affordable homes that are needed. These two factors, essential ingredients for any national housing strategy, have been missing for too long.
So will the Government adopt a definition for affordable housing that is based on income, and will they outline any plans they have to increase the proportion of new homes being built that are genuinely affordable? To bridge the gap between market cost and truly affordable homes, we see no alternative, in the short term, to an immediate increase in public capital subsidy. However, the Coming Home report also sets out how Governments might use the current planning system progressively to reduce land prices and the windfall gains to landowners to share the financial burden of delivering more truly affordable homes. I commend these ideas to the Government for serious consideration.
Land needs to be used to maximise long-term social and environmental benefits, not simply to sell for maximum price. Changes will be needed in charity law if we are to facilitate this across charities generally and I am delighted that the commission has started by seeking to clarify the law around Church land. But, according to data from the Government’s Public Land for Housing programme, only 15% of housing on land sold by the public sector was affordable, and less than 3% was for social rent. We must rethink our principles when public sector land is sold.
The early Church father, St Basil the Great, warned against making
“common need a means of private gain.”
So will all parties commit to ensuring that the law enables the use of all public sector and charitable land to maximise long-term social and environmental values, not just a crude measure of highest price?
Matthew chapter 6, verse 21 reads:
“Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
I believe that this is a fight for the heart and soul—of the Church of England, yes, but also of our country. Where is our treasure? Is it in shoring up riches for ourselves, or do we say that our treasure is in our neighbours, our communities, those who are impoverished and struggling? Where are our hearts?
In the ruins of the Second World War, a group of people got together to reimagine the heart of the nation after 1945. Many of them—Beveridge, Tawney, my extraordinary predecessor William Temple—were Christians. We can seize the moment, as they did, or we can allow it to slip by and suffer the consequences.
Over the past year, we have seen a disproportionate number of cases of infection and death where people have had to live in unsuitable and overcrowded accommodation. Overcrowded families have struggled to find space to educate their children and to work from home. Outdoor space has been vital to our well-being but often limited to those who can afford a garden. Where we live is connected to our health, our opportunities, our relationships, our education—our capacity for flourishing.
The crisis has revealed the underlying conditions which have exacerbated the devastating effects of the pandemic. It is the poorest and most marginalised people among us who are suffering the burden of the housing crisis, and that will change only if we take collective responsibility and action.
This has been a lot of words—far more than noble Lords wished to hear from me today, I am sure—but I am adamant that the work of this commission cannot result simply in words. There has to be action—in the Church and elsewhere. There must be change. Good homes available for all is a moral imperative.
As the report shows, the Bible is a story of home—from the Garden of Eden to the new Jerusalem. God cares deeply about how we live here on earth, and I am determined to be part of a Church—and pray that I might be part of a country—that channels that care. Millions of people have stayed in their homes to protect their fellow human beings this year. Let us repay them by making sure that everyone has a home which is sustainable, safe, secure, sociable and satisfying.
This report is a challenge to us all. Sacrifice is never easy, but the example of Jesus Christ, which we remember in this season, shows us that it is transformational. The Church is determined to play its role in meeting this challenge. Let us work together to make good housing affordable for all a cornerstone in the architecture of post-Covid Britain. I beg to move.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I congratulate the most reverend Primate on securing this debate and, above all, on the powerful and heartfelt way in which he has presented what I think is an unanswerable case. I echo his words about the tragedy of the death of Lord Greaves. I shall miss his interjections and his dulcet north-western tones greatly.
This is a very appropriate moment for this report and the commitment of the Church of England to be presented to us. I am a Methodist, so I hope your Lordships will forgive me for intruding on the debate in terms of the stewards taking forward this report. I put on record my thanks to Charlie Arbuthnot for the conversations I have had with him and congratulate all those who have taken part in putting this excellent report together.
In a moment I will talk a little more about social value, to which the most reverend Primate quite rightly referred, but first I will talk about housing. When I was leader of Sheffield City Council, I discovered that all of us—because, thankfully, all of us had a home—thought we were experts in housing. I am not. I am quite clear that there are others contributing this afternoon who have much greater expertise, both in the economics of the housing market and in the critical issues that the most reverend Primate referred to in terms of the balance, the importance of affordable housing and the setting aside of the ideology that we are in favour of either renting or buying.
Actually, we are in favour of building houses for people to live in as a basis for them to be able to grow a family and to be active and committed members of a community—to secure, as described in those five pillars, a safe and environmentally acceptable way of living their lives. It is an absolute basic in terms of everything else that we stand for, all we talk about in terms of the security of the family, the safety of the neighbourhood, the commitment to building social capital and the capacity of communities, such as at the moment, to be able to deal with major catastrophes such as the pandemic.
It is fundamentally about the building blocks of a civilised society. It is also a major contribution not only to the well-being and lives of young people and their ability to build a future but to how we care for our older generation. It is about the importance of creative ways in which we can develop social care so it is neither isolation without support nor encapsulation in often very committed social care, which, by its very nature, removes independence and presents real difficulty in terms of uniting, and keeping united, couples in old age where the wife or the husband has fallen ill or become severely disabled.
I hope that all parties will be able to commit to the clarion call from the Church of England. I have a close friend, the Reverend Dr Alan Billings, who is now the police and crime commissioner in South Yorkshire. I have spoken to him at great length over the years about his time serving on Faith in the City back in 1983-84—another era of great division. He assures me as a Methodist that it was a commitment underpinned by radical and sustainable theology. I cannot speak to that, but I know that carrying forward reports such as the one we are debating today will happen only if there is political commitment. The most reverend Primate referred to the welcome that this has received from right across the housing market, from housing associations to local government. I hope that will continue to be the case in the months ahead.
I want to say a word or two about what the most reverend Primate referred to towards the end of his excellent contribution: the need to change the legal framework—obviously, this includes the Church—for selling church assets and to amend the law so that we can include social and environmental values. The report talks about church land and buildings being used for social and environmental, as well as economic, benefit. To be able to do that, it is really important that the Church continues to join others in ensuring that there is a redefinition of the maximisation of value.
I know that the practice note that has been agreed with the Charity Commission will help the Church do this. But my point this afternoon is that, if this is to be a combined effort, I hope that, despite the agreement it has reached on the use of its own land and property, which is very welcome, the Church will continue to work with others to make any change requirements that are necessary to the wider interpretation by the Charity Commission of how land and property can be disposed of.
The most reverend Primate will know that a very old friend of mine is Geraldine Peacock, who now has the major challenge of severe Parkinson’s disease, who was head of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and then the Charity Commission itself. Nobody can ever forget being approached by Geraldine because her tenacity and terrier-like focus on what needs to be done can never be overlooked. I very much welcome that. I hope we will be able to find a way forward, following the excellent appointment of the Bishop of Chelmsford, and find solutions to problems that have arisen in North Yorkshire and in Wells, where Geraldine has been attempting to develop a community asset. I make no bones about mentioning that this afternoon, because it is an important example of a community asset, following the sale of the deanery in Wells, being used for the benefit of the wider community.
If we can pull together and understand the critical importance of housing as a centrepiece of the community, and if we can overcome barriers—easily done through a statutory instrument—to ensure that the social value Act 2013 is carried into practice right across our country, so much the better. Critically, we must back the Church of England as being in the vanguard of ensuring that we take forward what is necessary now to provide housing solutions for the future.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for enabling us to have this debate today. I remind the Committee that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I am particularly pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who said very many things with which I agree, not least on the importance of social value. He referred to the “clarion call” of the Church of England; that indeed is what this report is.
The report, Coming Home, from the Archbishops’ Commission on Housing, Church and Community, is a major contribution to current thinking on housing and on the need for a 20-year strategy. I want to talk first about values. Strategies and policies are built on values, and social values were very close to the thinking of my noble friend Lord Greaves, who spoke in the House only last week on housing and the private rented sector. The news of his death yesterday is deeply sad. He would have welcomed the commission report so very strongly.
There are several core values in the report. Homes and communities should be sustainable, safe, stable, sociable and satisfying. All of these are important words with which I concur. I will say something about safety first. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York has talked recently about resetting our compass. I agree. We should not accept homelessness, with all the risks to personal safety that it leads to. I wonder if the Minister might commit to speeding up the scrapping of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which makes it a crime to sleep rough. It belongs to another era, yet it is still being used to prosecute people who suffer from a variety of personal problems.
Then there is the safety of homes and the need to ensure the highest standards; for example, of electrical safety. The Grenfell inquiry has served as a wake-up call to address the shocking standards of building regulation in which hazardous products were allowed on to the market. There has been a culture of poor-quality building, in which cost-saving has been allowed to become the dominant consideration.
Some builders urgently need to improve quality and restore public trust. For example, a few days ago, the Competition and Markets Authority ordered two companies to remove contract terms that have meant that thousands of leaseholders had been paying excessive ground rents. Further, some owners of new homes have been asked to sign non-disclosure agreements when their builder undertakes repairs on their new-build homes. Why is this permitted?
The commission has made important points about sustainability. In that respect, I want to comment on the Green Homes Grant policy. It was welcome in theory, but it suffered from an excess of media spin and insufficient attention to detail. It proved very difficult to get a grant. Delays, plus a lack of advisers and builders with the right skills, have meant that just 8% of the scheme’s target of 600,000 will have been reached by the end of the month. I understand that 128,000 householders applied for a voucher but only 5,000 have actually had the work carried out because of the lack of capacity in the industry. I wonder whether the Minister can explain a little more about how this situation was allowed to arise.
The commission has also talked about the importance of stability. Stability of residence leads to stability of communities, and stable communities mean more sociable and satisfying places to live.
On affordability, the truth is that affordable homes are so very often unaffordable. The word “affordable” should never be used to suggest genuine affordability, which surely relates to income. Everyone needs a secure job, a good education and a decent home—those are values to which we should all subscribe—yet household poverty has risen sharply during the pandemic. Some 220,000 more households live in destitution today—the number has doubled in a year. Furthermore, the pandemic has put 700,000 more people into poverty; the figure would have been twice that had the additional £20 a week in universal credit ceased.
As the commission says, 8 million people in England live in overcrowded, unaffordable or unsuitable homes, with many caught in a poverty trap made worse by the pandemic. Although the Chancellor’s recent decision to deliver 95% mortgages is welcome for those able to take advantage of it, the benefit freeze will hit low-income families. As Shelter has pointed out, some tenants can get £100 less a month than their rent. I have concluded that the social security system is failing to provide adequate housing support for many low-income families.
I challenge the notion that the current affordable homes programme is adequate. There are grants available for socially rented homes, which is welcome, but there is nothing like enough to build the number of social rented homes that we need. Only 7,000 social rented homes were built in 2019. Can the Minister tell the House how many are currently being built?
It seems that the Government’s priority is to subsidise owner-occupation over social housing. First Homes, which sells to first-time buyers at a 30% discount, is to be financed from planning obligations paid by developers. It therefore seems that there will be less money for social and affordable homes from that source, and yet council housing waiting lists are likely to rise significantly as a result of the pandemic.
I am very glad that the Church of England is to use its land assets to promote truly affordable homes. The Government should follow suit by ensuring that part of rising land values is always captured for social and community benefit.
I have one final point: overhauling the planning system will not support the Government’s ambitions to build 300,000 homes a year or the social homes we need. Nine in 10 planning applications are approved by councils and more than a million homes given planning permission have not yet been built. We should also note that 1 million homes are awaiting development—that is, homes on land earmarked for development that have yet to be brought forward for planning permission. I venture to suggest that it is the housing delivery system that is broken, not the planning system.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said earlier that we need good housing that is affordable for all. Surely that is an objective that we all share.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the most reverend Primates the Archbishops on their report on the housing shortage and I particularly congratulate the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on the way he introduced it today. I welcome the report, first, because it recognises and highlights the importance of the housing crisis in this country. It is amazing how little attention is given to this problem, yet in my experience nearly all the social problems and many of the economic problems we face in this country are caused or aggravated by the shortage of housing. I fear it does not receive the attention it deserves because most of us in the chattering classes already own our own homes and subconsciously, or consciously, enjoy their rising value as demand outstrips supply and prices go up. The most reverend Primate’s reminder about where our true wealth lives is well made.
The second reason I welcome this report is because it urges the Church and Christians to lead by example by using Church land to build more homes. However, there is one thing that puzzles me about its conclusions and about the remarks the most reverend Primate made today.
The report advocates that housing should be sustainable, safe, stable, sociable and satisfying—jolly good things—but, despite its willingness to build more homes, increasing the supply of homes does not figure in the report’s alliterative list of priorities. I suggest that the word “sufficient” should be added, and that it be at the top of the list, because the only way to alleviate the housing shortage is to build more homes.
When I made this point in a speech in the Commons in 2014, it generated a headline in my local newspaper. For once, the headline was an entirely accurate precis of my speech: “MP says solution to housing shortage is build more homes”. Uncontentious, I thought, but what astonished me was the number of people who wrote to me and to the newspaper denouncing this assertion as ridiculous. Surely, they argued, our MP must realise that the housing shortage is the result of house prices, rents, land prices or mortgage interest rates being too high. The solution, they asserted, is for government to control house prices, rent, land prices and interest rates—and anyway, they invariably added, “We certainly don’t need to build any more houses in Hertfordshire”.
I am sure the most reverend Primate, who has worked in industry, knows that high prices, including rents and interest rates—which are prices—are symptoms of a shortage, not its cause. I shall put it very simply: the simple fact is that if you have 25 million dwellings and 26 million households wanting a home, a million of them are going to be disappointed. That is arithmetic. Young people may have to stay longer at home with their parents, others may have to share overcrowded flats with friends, and dwellings may have to be split into smaller units, even though the average size of our homes in this country is far smaller than anywhere else in the developed world. Those with no or low incomes will have to be helped by housing benefit to acquire a roof over their head, which is one reason why the housing benefit bill has been soaring. But every dwelling they occupy means that someone else, a bit higher up the income scale, will have to share or will be forced to occupy overcrowded properties.
We can ration housing by prices, rents and incomes, supplemented by housing benefit, or we can keep prices and rents below the market clearing level, and the Government will then have to allocate the supply of housing according to some assessment of need. In practice, we do a mixture of both, but, either way—however we switch the emphasis between the two—it does not alter the fundamental arithmetic. If there are only 25 million homes and 26 million would-be households, 1 million of them will have to share.
What should be clear is that reducing the rents of some of those 25 million dwellings below the market clearing level will not create a single extra dwelling, though in the long run it will reduce the supply of rented accommodation. Reducing the price of houses below the market level will not add a single home to the housing stock in the short term, though it will reduce the supply of homes in the long term. Reducing mortgage terms below the commercial level will not add a single home, though it will quickly add to demand and drive up prices facing those without access to cheap mortgages, as the Government are about to find out.
There is only one way to alleviate the housing shortage and that is to build more homes. Sadly, the report, and indeed the remarks of the most reverend Primate, were somewhat equivocal about that. On page 80, the report says:
“It is disingenuous to imply that ever higher targets for building new homes will somehow make them more affordable. It won’t and it hasn’t. Adding around 1% to the housing stock each year will not have much, if any, effect on housing prices.”
I am afraid that that statement is disingenuous: of course extra supply will not bring down prices relative to incomes if the demand is rising as fast or faster.
That brings me to my second question about this report. Where in it is the analysis and recognition of the causes of the housing shortage? I found it difficult to extract. Why have house prices in the UK outstripped incomes during the past 20 years, as it spells out? Why are they so much higher relative to incomes than in France, Germany or even Switzerland? There is only one possible answer: that the growth of supply has fallen short of the growth in demand. We have been building far fewer new houses now than was achieved decades ago by Harold Macmillan, and even our target is below the level he achieved.
At least part of the reason for that is nimbyism, the selfish attitude of those who own homes but oppose plans to build homes anywhere near theirs. The document mentions the issue, though only a couple of times. It rightly condemns it, though in rather equivocal terms, saying that
“There may be some good reasons to be a Nimby”
and then saying that there are not really any if you are a Christian. I would rather it to be a more ringing denunciation of nimbyism.
It is possible, though difficult, to overcome nimbyism. I faced it in my own constituency, where, before the 2015 election, a group of people said that if I did not agree to oppose all new housebuilding in the constituency, they would run a candidate against me. They belonged to the Harpenden civic society, which is the 1,000 most important people in Harpenden. I faced them down. I managed to persuade a big public meeting which they held that it was a moral obligation to support building more houses, for the reasons spelled out in this report. The Church will have to be prepared to be pretty robust when it starts building on church land, because it will be faced with nimbyism, but, as I say, it is possible to face it down.
Why has demand outstripped supply? Until 2000, the main factor in increasing demand was the declining size of the average household. It was declining by 0.5% a year, because of people living longer after their kids left home, so that there were only two in the home instead of four or whatever; some elderly people living alone after the death of their spouse; and, sadly, the break-up of marriages. For all those reasons, household size was declining. Actually, it ceased to decline, because people cannot afford to break up with their spouses and leave home early, and children are having to stay with their parents much longer and so on.
That was the main factor, but, in the last couple of decades, another factor has overtaken it: namely, net migration into this country. In recent years, typically 600,000 people have come to live in this country and 300,000 have left. We have had to build houses for the net 300,000 who have come here each year. Since Tony Blair took the locks off immigration, a net 5 million people have come here. We seem reluctant to mention this—it certainly does not get any mention in this report. The ONS says that, over the past decade, over three-quarters of additional new households are headed by someone who was born abroad.
This is an important issue. This is not the place to discuss whether we should have a higher or lower level of immigration, but we can surely agree that anyone who believes that this country should continue to be a destination of mass migration and settlement—which it has never been historically—must not then oppose every proposal for housebuilding in their area. Sadly, I found that it was very often those who criticised any tightening of immigration controls who also opposed every planning application in my constituency. I hope that I will have the Church on my side when I criticise such hypocrisy.
Lord Best (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my relevant interests as in the register, including as chair of the Affordable Housing Commission and as a Church Commissioner for the Church of England. I congratulate the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on establishing this housing commission and thank him for his inspiring presentation of its findings today, and I thank its chair, Charlie Arbuthnot, and the commissioners, for bringing together an excellent analysis of this country’s severe housing problems and their potential solutions. My comments are in two parts: first, a ringing endorsement of the commission’s main conclusions, and then a commentary on the specific recommendations to the Church of England on the use of its land assets.
I greatly welcome the commission’s housing policy recommendations. Its core conclusion is that
“the primary issue with the housing sector is not just a lack of housing”—
the lack of housing to which the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, rightly refers—
“but instead a lack of truly affordable housing, particularly for those on low incomes.”
This chimes with the theme of the Affordable Housing Commission, organised by the Smith Institute and funded by the Nationwide Foundation, which reported last year. We showed that, in large parts of the country, even if a landlord is willing to offer you a place, the rent is likely to absorb so much of your income—40% or even 50%—that you will end up in poverty, in debt, in arrears or, at worst, homeless.
I cite as an example the official statistics for poverty from Brent Council’s Poverty Commission, which I had the privilege to chair last year: before housing costs, 17% of households and 22% of children in the borough were classified as living in poverty; after housing costs were taken into account the figure rose to 32% of households and 43% of children. So the housing costs doubled the numbers living in poverty, to say nothing of so many being in the overcrowded, insecure and unhealthy conditions that have been shown up by the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on these communities.
Our Affordable Housing Commission noted that so many more households are struggling with housing costs because of the switch to the private rented sector, with its market rents, which has doubled in size in less than 20 years, to 20% of the nation’s housing, while the social housing sector—housing association and council housing—with its much more affordable rents, has halved to just 17% of our homes. The solution is for the Government to support councils and housing associations to increase their output of so-called social rented housing to around a third of the Government’s target of 300,000 new homes per annum.
I turn to the special ingredient in the commission’s recommendations which relates to the Church of England itself in addressing the housing crisis. The report highlights the wonderful work done at the local level by members of faith groups in social action that helps homeless people and engages with housing support of different kinds. The commission sees a special opportunity for practical assistance to extend this commitment through the use of land and buildings in the Church of England’s ownership. This is enormously important because the price and availability of land is perhaps the greatest stumbling block to producing the affordable housing we need. However, this is by no means a straightforward matter, as my three years as a Church Commissioner, under the skilful and sensitive chairmanship of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, have taught me.
The first obstacle to attempts to dispose of a piece of church land or buildings on favourable terms—for example, to a community land trust or a voluntary body working for the homeless—is the confusing legal obligation on any charity to reject all but
“the best terms reasonably obtainable”.
In reality, the definition of “best value” should not be such a problem. Indeed, the price a housing association or other voluntary body can pay will often not be appreciably lower than that obtainable from a speculative development and other benefits will more than compensate for any difference—benefits not just to society but in the wider work of the Church itself, sometimes even with the provision of a nomination right to a rented flat for a church worker, curate or a retired vicar. I hope that ongoing discussions with the Charity Commission will resolve this long-standing valuation issue. However, it is possible that your Lordships’ help will be needed for legislative change to remove this irritating obstacle.
Then there is the anxiety that disposing of church land or buildings at anything less than full open market price will diminish resources for the Church’s core ministry. Land is a highly significant part of the Church’s historic assets. In addition to the commissioners’ land holdings of over 90,000 acres, there are hundreds more sites and buildings with development potential within the Church’s 41 dioceses, with initiatives in Gloucester and Newham, for example, already showing the way.
The Church Commissioners have been highly successful in promoting ethical investment for their stocks and shares, most prominently in exerting pressure on oil companies to decarbonise and meet sustainability goals. This sets the precedent for the commissioners to be a pace setter also in respect of the Church’s investments in land. The commission calls for generous, “sacrificial” action but I see a number of good reasons why ensuring that land assets serve a social purpose need not be in conflict with the need to achieve proper returns from this source.
First, it is the obtaining of planning consent that makes a development possible and unlocks its hidden value. This requires the backing of the local planning authority. There is widespread disenchantment with the volume housebuilders because, despite making substantial profits, so often they have demonstrated poor quality, poor design, lack of space and community facilities, leasehold scams, unjustified bonuses and, prominently, an antipathy to including affordable housing in their developments. Local authorities are likely to be far keener to deal with Church bodies that exercise responsible stewardship in the use of their land assets. Similarly, the locals who protest—often with much justification—at low-quality developments with no green spaces or community components, and with few, if any, homes affordable to local people, can be brought on side when a responsible stance is taken for Church-owned sites.
If the Church nationally and at the diocesan level has the reputation of insisting on high standards and achieving public good, those vital planning consents can and should be more easily secured. I am delighted that the Church Commissioners have signed up to adopting the good behaviour of the 2020 stewardship code when selling land. This is a step in the right direction and translating this into specific outcomes, with a stewardship kitemark, is the important next move.
Secondly, doing the right thing in utilising land holdings can also be a way of improving the return from this asset for years to come. By following the example of a growing number of other major landowners—including the Duchy of Cornwall with its successful Poundbury urban extension and its new scheme at Nansledan—and being a patient investor, long-term gains can be obtained. Simply selling to one of the oligopoly of housebuilders only enriches those companies. Instead, retaining land ownership and organising high-quality, community-enhancing developments, often in partnership with smaller building firms and housing associations, can keep the development profits in the Church’s hands.
It is good to note that investigations are now being undertaken by the Church Commissioners, with top-level property experts, to explore these opportunities. I commend the Citizens UK initiative, with which the Church of England is closely associated, alongside the Methodist Church and others, for a partnership with the Government that offers land release for social housing in return for funding to cover all the initial feasibility work. The Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick, has agreed to discuss this proposition further and I hope that the Minister will also engage.
In these ways, I am hopeful that, without weakening its financial position, the Church of England, and perhaps other denominations if they see fit, will maximise its direct contribution to easing the nation’s housing shortages. By encouraging responsible action by other landowners, from Oxbridge colleges to the Ministry of Defence to academy trusts and charitable foundations, it can magnify its influence for good, just as it has done so well with its ethical equity investment policies.
I conclude by reiterating my thanks to the most reverend Primate and I hugely welcome the appointment of the new bishop for housing, Bishop Guli Francis-Dehqani, who can take forward the Church’s renewal of its historic engagement with the housing scene. I wish her every success in helping all of us to up our game in tackling this most fundamental of our society’s problems.
The Archbishop of York [V]
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Best, whose work and witness in housing has been such an inspiration to many of us. I pay particular tribute to the work that he has done as a Church Commissioner in recent years. It is an honour to speak in this debate and support my dear brother, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose visionary leadership in this and other issues of social policy draws people of faith and good will together in developing a narrative of hope. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his reference, as this is the first speech I have made since returning to the House of Lords as the 98th Archbishop of York.
We need to reset our compass. As we emerge from the horrors and sorrows of Covid, we have all become much more aware of our interdependence. Just as Covid cannot be dealt with anywhere until it is dealt with everywhere, so it is with other challenges facing our common life. When we cheered the NHS last summer, we were also cheering a set of ideas that are precious to our national life—namely, that we belong to each other. There are some things, like health, that are so basic that we cherish the fact that they are available to everyone at the point of need and regardless of one’s ability to pay. Should not this principle apply to other things as well, such as food on everyone’s table and a roof over everyone’s head?
Unfortunately, part of the housing challenge facing our nation is that we have not approached this in a sufficiently joined-up way; we tend first to think of homeless people on our streets and the human tragedy and political, policy and social failures that this represents. However, as we know, this is just the visible misery on the surface of a larger and far more extensive set of challenges. Behind those who literally have nowhere to live are the hidden homeless, who move from place to place and sofa to sofa, in temporary and insecure accommodation. There are also those who are forced into inadequate and unsatisfactory housing because nothing else is available. Then there are those who cannot afford to live in the communities where they grew up—and the concomitant damage to morale and social cohesion. As we know, this is a big and complicated challenge—but it affects millions of people, not just the homeless, though they must always remain our most immediate concern. In this debate, may we then also take the opportunity to thank the amazing charities, up and down our land, who minister to the needs of those who currently live on our streets, with whom churches, faith groups and others are so involved?
The other visible sign of the problem we face is, however, less obviously a problem at first: the vast new estates that we are building. The housing may be very nice if you can afford it, but so much of the motivation is profit, and the infrastructure needed to make houses into homes and homes into communities is often lacking. There are of course marvellous exceptions to this—we must build on them, literally. That is what the Coming Home report is all about: establishing the values and finding the political will to tackle the housing challenge together with long-term, joined-up solutions. This requires a reset in our attitude to housing and how we approach what so often appear to be intractable problems.
The key word in this discourse, as with so many of the political challenges facing us at the moment, is “together”. We are unlikely to make significant progress until all parts of our society and all parts of government cohere around a common vision and, as this report identifies, a common set of values that can drive policy over a longer period of time, transcending the short-term fixes that are often dictated by short election cycles. Yes, this is a challenge to all of us—national, local and regional government, landlords and landowners—but there can be exciting ways forward and practical steps that we can take, when we move together.
As my most reverend friend the Archbishop of Canterbury said, the Church must lead by example and face these challenges itself, which is why the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the changes that may be needed in the Church’s use of land and that of other charitable bodies is so important. Working together will be helped by cross-party recognition of the sorts of values and approaches outlined here. At the very least, we should start by adopting a definition of affordable housing that is linked to income, as others have said.
Of the five values identified here as being fundamental to our vision for homes and community, I will, in the few minutes left to me, focus on the last one: satisfying. It would be possible to build sustainable, safe, stable and sociable houses, but they would not necessarily be things of beauty or a source of joy. I am delighted that this fifth element, which could so easily be seen as an optional extra, is kept in the mix, because it will encourage architects, builders, interior designers, artists, craftspeople and those at the cutting edge of developing the new technology we need for our homes to be sustainable to think and imagine how this can be achieved with beauty as well as simplicity and economy. We need to draw again on some of the great architectural visions of our history and European history to raise our expectations.
While being interviewed on the radio a few years ago—it was not a very hard-hitting interview; it was not Jeremy Paxman—I was asked about my likes and dislikes, foibles and peccadillos, of which there are many. I was asked about my favourite journey. I replied that I really liked driving round the M25 and up the A12. The interviewer looked at me askance—this was not the expected answer—but this was my favourite journey, of course, because it was my journey home. Now, having moved, I would say how much I love the A64.
However, my experience of joy and expectation when I turn the corner to arrive home is not the experience of many of our citizens, either because they have no home or because their home is not what it should be. During this past year, we know that inequalities in housing have callously accelerated the spread of Covid, where cramped conditions and lack of access to outside space have meant that those without good homes are also those without good health. This must change. Asking for such a change is not naive optimism; it is a vision of hope that can lift our spirits and stiffen our resolve. To do it is within our grasp. It is a matter of policy and political will. It is the right thing to do, but it will also save us money through improved health, social cohesion and well-being.
This report is called Coming Home. It aims for nothing less than ensuring that everyone can come home—and find joy and stability in that home. To build homes is to build community. To build community is to build stability. To build stability is to build peace—and is that not the first responsibility of government?
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I want to pay my respects to Lord Greaves and his family after his untimely death. If he had been able, he would have been with us here today. It is very sad.
I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and welcome the commission’s report. I also thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, who set out so well the situation for families living in bad housing or bed and breakfasts, or sofa-surfing—perhaps for not just weeks at a time but months and years—dragging children and unwell relations with them. This is difficult because the most important thing for children is space, including space for them to learn and have a sure start. As we come out of Covid, they must be our priority.
I commend the commission’s recommendations and support its actions, particularly its call for action to be taken by the Government and other actors in the housing market. We must continue to take firm resolution not to evict families or individuals at the present time; I hope that this can be extended for another year or so while we come through Covid, because it is not over yet.
Above all, there must be a national strategy, perhaps for 20 years. It must have clear objectives, it must not be short-term and it must be cross-party so that it can continue election after election. It must identify the roles of central and local government. Land must be released. At the same time, we must look at what is holding up planning. If the planning is agreed but it takes time for building to start, we must look at that too. It is necessary to improve the quality of our existing stock, the safety of which is deplorable and unsuitable. We really have to keep relooking at our stock.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, reminded me today of the London Borough of Brent, which I know extremely well. I have to say that the housing stock there needs a lot of support and improvement, like in many other inner-city boroughs. This report brings out to us what we have to do to increase the supply of new housing, which is vital. The new supply of housing must be truly affordable, with lower land prices and much greater public subsidy. That is vital for the future of Britain plc. If we do not do this, we will have to spend much more money on health, we will have undereducated children and we will not have the opportunities that there ought to be. The issue is well addressed in the commission’s report.
Part of housing is also green spaces, as some noble Lords have mentioned. Community areas should be available to residents but not only that: I have seen estates in other parts of the country where we insisted that banks were there so that they were accessible. I know that that is now online but in some way there should be access to finance, to the post office and to medical care so that people do not have to go miles and miles. There also needs to be access to transport and so I call on the Government to look clearly at their bus transport ideas that have just been mentioned and inner-London transport. It is vital that housing is comfortable and that when people go home they feel happy. We also have to help with rough sleeping and try to remove that from the future.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. Lord Bradshaw? I understand that you are muted, Lord Bradshaw. Can you unmute?
We will have to move on to the next speaker and perhaps we can come back to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud.
Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]
My Lords, I add my welcome to the Coming Home report and offer my congratulations to the most reverend Primates the Archbishops of Canterbury and York on their obvious and real commitment to this issue.
Before getting into the debate about housing per se, I will highlight the three aspects of the report that I want most to commend. First, the report is written in the most practical way that will ensure that much-needed housing is actually built. The report highlights the needs of 8 million people that are currently going unmet, so the issue of housing supply and quality is real and tangible. Secondly, the report is written in a way that understands the longing of the human heart for home and homes that are sustainable, safe, stable, sociable and satisfying. This understanding that a home is more than just bricks and mortar is crucial to the Britain we want to build and to building back better. Thirdly, it is a written in a way that takes responsibility and leaves us all asking ourselves: what can I do?
The Church of England is saying quite clearly that it wants to bring its land and lay it at the disposal of those in need, to find a way through on the issue of affordable housing. In the report it commits to using its land assets to promote more truly affordable homes. The response of every government department, business and owner of land needs to be: “What can we do?” I say to any Church Commissioners who are listening: I am aware that you hold the power to make this happen. I urge you to think about unlocking the potential of this recommendation as the Church seeks to lead the way.
The report finds that around 8 million people in England live in unaffordable, overcrowded or unsuitable homes. Whole sections of our society, including people of all ages, are affected by the UK’s housing challenge and history but those in poverty and who are vulnerable bear the brunt. The housing crisis has been driven by a number of factors and, as the report says, it has been a developing issue through the tenure of successive Governments but I am going to pick up on just three of the themes in the report and one of the recommendations. I am going to look at affordability, overcrowding and the stability of our homes, and then the call for a long-term housing strategy.
Turning to affordability, the report rightly identifies unaffordability and lack of supply as major issues. Any noble Lord with children in their 20s would be inclined to agree. The Government made strong commitments in their manifesto saying
“we will continue our progress towards our target of 300,000 homes a year by the mid-2020s. This will see us build at least a million more homes, of all tenures, over the next Parliament–in the areas that really need them.”
The report says,
“good housing policy creates stable communities, where, if they wish”
to stay, people are can buy or rent at truly affordable prices,
“put down roots and build lives, families”
and communities, but even most small homes are too expensive for most buyers in the UK. The average house sells for eight times the average annual income, and small overpriced homes are the result of a system that is simply not creating enough homes to meet demand.
Whether homes are owned or rented, we need an honest assessment of what “affordable” means. A 2018 CSJ report found that hospitality staff, hairdressers and supermarket employees on average salaries for their respective sectors would need to put away 10% of their wages for more than 100 years to afford a deposit on the average UK home and that most starter homes and shared ownership products are affordable to no more than 3% of new social tenants. This is unsustainable and has knock-on impacts.
As the gap between average incomes and house prices has widened, the proportion of all households renting privately has doubled since 2001. The sector now houses some 4.7 million households and around 12.9 million people. This, in turn, has put enormous strain on those in need of social housing, and there are some 1.2 million families on social housing waiting lists across the country. This, in turn, puts pressure on those in temporary housing, many staying in such homes for far beyond the legal guidelines—for months, if not years.
We are a nation that rightly values home, being able to put down roots and staying close to our family networks. We like our families. People’s impulse to home ownership is right and natural. People who own homes have a stake in their community; they feel secure and able to invest emotionally and financially in the place where they live. This is something that we want to encourage, and asset ownership of any kind makes people responsible and orientated to the long term.
The Coming Home report importantly recommends that
“The Government’s long-term housing strategy should include a specific goal to reduce the number of households living in temporary housing, which is by definition unstable.”
Furthermore, it recommends that there should be
“a new quality standard for temporary accommodation, and an effective”
and transparent
“resolution process when this standard is not being met.”
We all know that the principal cost of a house is the land that it sits on. I have previously written and spoken about the need to develop new models of land ownership, including via community land trusts, which acquire land on behalf of local people and sell only the bricks and mortar, at a greatly reduced cost compared to the price of the house plus land. We must also be wary that, as we grow the supply of homes required to reduce demand, the additional capacity is not consumed just by high-end buyers and investors, without benefit for the majority of people.
The second issue is overcrowding. This crisis, although referred to as a housing crisis, should not be underestimated for what it really is: a home crisis. As the Coming Home report eloquently puts it,
“good houses are places we delight to come home to, that give pleasure and satisfaction, both to live in and to look at.”
The average new home in Britain occupies a tiny 76 square metres, 40% less than the average new home in Germany and 30% less than in France. We should not seek to solve the housing crisis by creating more and more tiny flats that cement the fragmentation and atomisation of society. Instead, as we support our families with increasing relationship stability, we need to build homes that support community.
Thirdly, on the stability of housing, with unaffordability as a key challenge, many have resorted to the private rented sector, but here they have found that life can be precarious and certainly not stable. Landlords have a particular duty of care to their tenants but, with the threat of a no-fault eviction, vulnerable people are often hesitant to approach landlords when safety issues arise with their property, especially when children are involved. There are often no consequences for landlords who would rather evict their tenants for being difficult than address their concerns. For many across the UK the availability of homes is not the issue but the stability of tenancy. A stable home provides a period of predictability and security so that households have a reliable base around which to organise working and family life. One study found that, controlling for other factors, two or more moves in the first year of life could be linked definitively with behavioural problems at the age of nine, and for older children, home moves can mean school moves. Only 27% of pupils who move schools three times or more during their secondary school career achieve five A to C grades, compared to the national average of 60%.
However, of the many recommendations of the Coming Home report, the first—the recognition of the need for a long-term housing strategy—is perhaps of greatest importance. We have set a long-term vision for pensions, as well as for defence, development and foreign policy. It is time for a long-term strategy to be developed to address the issue of housing in the UK. It is interesting how across the social policy space, more and more of our challenges need a long-term approach. I have frequently highlighted the need for a poverty strategy, and those involved in social care are calling for a long-term social care strategy. There are serious reasons behind this.
First, we want to ensure that we are tackling the root causes of the problem and not just the symptoms and that our actions do not have unintended consequences. Here it is important that our actions do not, for example, lead to an artificially inflated housing market—it would be so easy to do so. Secondly, it is those who are most vulnerable who often interact with government policy at a greater number of points in their lives, so it is the most vulnerable who deal with government more than anyone else. What many of these people cannot take or cope with is swings in government policy—they are deeply destabilising. They also need to be able to rely on a strong social contract. For this reason, I echo the Archbishops’ call for a long-term strategy. However, this is also important from a planning perspective too. We are a nation starting out on a new journey. How great it would be if future generations were able to look back and say that we were characterised by such ambition that served them well and that we made the right calls to build this nation well at a moment of transition, that our legacy was one where homes became affordable, peaceful and stable.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the most reverend Primate for the opportunity to discuss on a non-political basis the position of homes and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Greaves, with whom I worked very closely.
What I think about—I have listened very carefully to the debate—is who are these 8 million people who live in homes which are not fit to live in? Many of them are the people who do the jobs which are at the bottom of the pile and yet are so essential to the well-being of most of us. They are people who drive buses, empty dustcarts and sweep the streets, who do the mundane jobs on which all of us depend, and yet it seems we cannot afford to house them comfortably or properly
While I welcome the initiative described in Coming Home, I am worried that, if houses are let go at less than market value, a means must be found of ensuring that those houses remain within the public sector and can be let again to other people rather than that the people who buy them make a lot of profit and the houses become unaffordable to anybody else.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, called for a long-term strategy, as did my noble friend Lord Shipley. It is the only way in which we can come to a new dispensation where the land that is acquired by public subsidy or from charity law is land with social value that must be safeguarded for the future. Otherwise anything we do will be only a short-term solution to our problems. I accept that there are tremendous social problems associated with poor housing. I am sure that the only way out of this situation is the way described in the report, but on a much larger scale because the number of houses that can be built on church land is relatively small, but we can think of lots of other land which is semi-public sector land, for example, land belonging to Oxford colleges. If this is realised, it should carry some sort of social contract with the public that they should get a share of the benefits.
I hope that this report bears fruit and that we will see legislative action. I wish the Church the very best in its endeavours.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I welcome this report by the Archbishops’ Commission on Housing, Church and Community and the leadership the commission is taking to address this crucial policy area. The current housing crisis is one of the most pressing policy challenges of our time. I have been involved in work associated with the need for housing for many years. I remember that many years ago it was in York that forward-looking leaders in the Church first adapted local churches, unused in the week, to accommodate older people’s groups which were able to enjoy many facilities and activities, including following their various hobbies, and the churches were reshaped for worship at the weekend. This was then a very innovative, new approach, and the churches were the leaders in this development. I welcomed it then and still welcome it today.
In addition to the many recommendations in the report, which I strongly support, I draw attention to providing appropriate and affordable housing for older people in our ageing society, so well described by many noble Lords. The Covid-19 pandemic has accelerated and intensified the desire of many older people to retain their independence for as long as possible, to avoid moving into care homes and to be part of a community. A solution to this is often housing with care, through which people can maintain independent living while getting the support they need in community housing where care and support are available if they require it.
We need to be building far more housing with care, which is enjoyed by so many people, as our tendency to live longer increases. There are currently 11.8 million people aged over 65 in the UK and this number is expected to rise by more than 40% in the next 17 years to over 16 million. Despite this, current planning and regulatory systems make it extremely difficult to help new housing with care facilities meet the demands and needs of our ageing population.
Therefore, we need to consider how we can support the development of housing with care both when reviewing planning regulations and in the coming changes to the social care system that the Government have promised to make later this year. Part of the challenge will be to ensure that there is land available to develop new housing with care accommodation. This is consistent with what the Archbishops’ Commission recommends in its report and with the Government’s stated aim of supporting people enjoying at least five extra healthy, independent years of life by 2035.
The very different situation that has emerged as a result of the Covid crisis is that many office blocks, currently unused, will become redundant as people continue to work at home for a large part, if not all, of the working week. Surely it would be sensible to convert many office buildings wholly or partly to affordable housing, particularly housing with the sorts of facilities that older people can enjoy and benefit from, and to consider, where appropriate, housing with care, which can and does transform many older people’s lives, giving them safety, security, care when needed, valuable social lives—and hope for the future. I hope that the Government and others involved in housing will take this very seriously indeed.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester [V]
My Lords, I thank my most reverend friend the Archbishop of Canterbury for sponsoring this debate. My personal interest and passion in tackling homelessness and creating good homes for the people of our nation go far beyond the interests contained in the official register, to which I draw your Lordships’ attention. Alongside those, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, has indicated, I now chair the board of governors of the Church Commissioners, as deputy to my most reverend friend. I gladly confirm to your Lordships that the board welcomes the report, and indeed I am member of the group set up by the Church charged with overseeing its implementation.
Today we have no Bill to scrutinise, no complex Marshalled List of amendments to work through; what we have is something that runs far deeper, something that should underpin and equip us for such future legislation on the matter of housing as is brought forward to your Lordships’ House to determine. The five values for housing that the Archbishops’ Commission has set before us—sustainable, safe, stable, sociable and satisfying—have been implicit in much of the work I have engaged in over the years. But now we have them encapsulated in a simple and memorable form. Not least, they recognise that a home is far more than walls, roofs, bricks, tiles, glass and mortar. A home is somewhere we can belong.
Some years ago, I was speaking at the official opening of a building that housed several asylum and refugee support services in Birmingham. After those of us numbered among the moderately great and modestly good had all had our say, a young man from one of the charities based in the centre spoke. He said, “For all my time in this country so far, I have been your guest. Today, for the first time, I am the host and you are my guests, and that makes all the difference.” A home is not fully a home until it is a place where we can do what that young man did—offer hospitality and receive guests. That, I believe, is why the concept of home as a sociable place—the fourth of the core values set out in the commission’s report—is so important. I also learned that day in Birmingham that other cultures have much to teach us about the centrality of hospitality to human flourishing.
My most reverend friend referred in his opening speech to his predecessor William Temple. Temple was of course translated to Canterbury from York, having prior to that been Bishop of Manchester. So three of us speaking in Grand Committee today hold offices Temple once held and seek to inhabit that inheritance. Worn out by war and restricted by rationing, the Britain of the 1940s could all too easily have become a divided nation, but Temple and those with whom he worked had a greater vision of a society where all were provided with basics, such as healthcare and education, so that they might have space to flourish.
The mass social housing efforts of the post-war years demolished the slums of our cities, including the house where I was born, in order to replace them with something better. Not everything that was built proved a lasting success—things are rarely that straightforward —but huge progress was made in creating homes that could be lived in with dignity.
In a Britain reeling from 12 months of pandemic, a nation still seeking to redefine itself outside the European Union, we need to recover the boldness of Temple and his generation. We need to make decisions about housing not based on short-term political expediency—whatever might garner a few more votes in a marginal council ward or parliamentary constituency—but on a vision of the good society we wish to bequeath to our grandchildren. Recommendations set out in the commission’s report offer us a road map, if I may use that fashionable term, towards a nation housed for living in the 21st century.
I cannot let this opportunity pass without some reference to one piece of legislation currently before Parliament. It is my privilege to support the Manchester Cladiators group. Its members are leaseholders in high and medium-rise buildings who have been caught up in the aftermath of the dreadful tragedy of Grenfell Tower. The ramifications of that disaster reached much wider than merely to residents of high-rise blocks beset by poor cladding. The deaths at Grenfell have, like the deaths of George Floyd and Sarah Everard, made our society aware of more widespread failings, albeit in this case in our physical rather than our social fabric.
Many buildings formerly considered safe, and homes in them bought on that basis, are now deemed sufficiently at risk as to be unmortgageable. Residents who may need to move for work or family reasons are trapped; some are facing service charges and bills of orders of magnitude higher than in previous years in order to pay for waking watches, insurance or building refurbishment. In many cases the freeholder is little more than a shell mechanism through which leaseholders pay their service charges to the developer who constructed the block. This is a problem too big for anyone other than government to solve, and too urgent for it to be allowed to fester a moment longer. Will the Minister speak with his Treasury colleagues and use his good offices to gain their commitment to attending the next meeting that he and his ministry are due to have with the End Our Cladding Scandal campaign?
Noble Lords will remember, I hope, the famous words written by Lewis Carroll—like me, both a mathematician and an Anglican clergyman:
“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that’s all.’”
In housing terms, an “affordable rent” is now defined by Her Majesty’s Government as being one at or below 80% of the market rent for the local area. But if I were looking in the window of an estate agent and saw one house on sale for a million pounds and one next to it for £800,000, that would hardly convince a mortgage lender that I could afford, on a bishop’s stipend, to buy the cheaper one. As several speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, have reminded us, affordability has to mean what the purchaser can afford. Redefining the word, Humpty Dumpty-like, to mean something entirely other may assert mastery over the language but only at the cost of confusing and damaging serious discourse on Britain’s housing crisis. Please may we have our word back, and some truly affordable homes?
Shortly before lockdown became a word, I was standing one morning in a room high up in the centre of Manchester, speaking with Sir Richard Leese, the leader of the council. Looking out through the windows, we began to count the number of cranes visible. Each one was a symbol of the economic regeneration that had revitalised the city that we both serve, and many of them were building blocks of high-quality apartments.
The number of people living close to the city centre has rocketed so much in recent years that I have had to reverse the practice of my predecessors and buy new city-centre vicarages to house the clergy of the city churches closer to their new parishioners. I welcome the growth in city-centre living, locating people close to where they work, cutting down commuting costs, while helping to support shops and leisure facilities.
Sadly, however, we have also seen something of a trend first spotted in London: blocks are built and apartments are sold, but no one ever moves in. Instead of homes, we are constructing bank vaults in the sky: edifices intended purely to hold value, never people. They have more in common with gold bricks than the bricks that build our homes. While so many of our fellow citizens remain homeless or poorly housed, they are a scandal.
I accept that appropriating them directly to rent out affordably would probably prove too complex to achieve in law, but a stiffer tax regime, radically reducing the incentive to hold much-needed properties empty for long periods, would not only bring more homes into occupation but raise funds from the others—money that could then be redeployed to address our housing crisis. I urge the Minister in this debate to let us know what plans the Government have or will consider, including the taxation of such properties, so that they no longer lie empty in our cities, while, mere yards away, our fellow citizens lie down to sleep in shop doorways each night.
To conclude, today is a day for words, but, like those in the Archbishops’ commission’s report, they must result in action. I thank my most reverend friend for giving us this opportunity to debate these matters, and I pray that his efforts may be richly rewarded.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach. Lord Griffiths? The noble Lord cannot unmute, so we will move on to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and hope we can go back to the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, later.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part today, and I congratulate the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on securing this debate. I declare my interests as the chair of the National Community Land Trust Network and a vice-president of the LGA. I welcome the report and the introduction given by the most reverend Primate, and I share his desire for good homes that are affordable for all.
My first involvement in campaigning for and against housing started 40 years ago. Newly married, we moved into a new cul-de-sac of 11 houses on the edge of the village. A year later, a woman knocked on the door, asking me to sign a petition against further houses on an orchard in the centre of the village. I asked her if she had similarly campaigned to prevent the building of the house we were living in; she was honest and said yes. I refused to sign her petition.
Later, when I was on the parish council, it was obvious that there was a desperate need for affordable homes, especially bungalows to enable the elderly to downsize. We searched with both the district council and the housing association to no avail. The village is still without these benefits. However, some swanky bungalows are now being built on redundant farmland—not quite what we originally had in mind.
The glebe land in the centre of the village had a village room at one side, a play area with equipment and an area for ball games. The playschool, as it was then, operated three days a week from the church room. The Church Commissioners, having a hard time financially, were looking for areas to develop and cast their eyes on our piece of land. As you might expect, I wrote to the bishop at Wells, and the Church Commissioners subsequently looked elsewhere. This was not a case of “not in my backyard” but of preserving the essential area that belonged to the children and young people. There were seats there for the mums and elderly to sit, chat and watch the children play.
The sense of community exists only when everyone is catered for: young couples starting out, growing families, young people exploring independence, empty nests and the elderly not wanting to move away from lifelong friends. A home is where each of us should be able to relax, shout at the TV, play music, read a book, and share meals and the experiences of the day. I regret that I probably take all this for granted, but it is not so for others. In cities, towns and villages, there are those who have no settled base. Their accommodation is shared, overcrowded, temporary, poorly built or maintained, not on a bus route, or a long way from the school. Children need a secure home in order to flourish. This has been brought into sharp contrast during the pandemic, as children often have to share a computer with their siblings to access education, often all sitting round the kitchen table to do their schoolwork.
Good housing, as the commission’s report Coming Home sets outs, should be
“sustainable, safe, stable, sociable, and satisfying”.
It is essential that all new housing should have minimal impact on the environment and be good to look at. Finding land that is available, in the right place and affordable is often the stumbling block. The Church has land. Developers and housing associations are looking for land. However, the best solutions come from the communities themselves, recognising the need for housing and working with others to make this happen. Forming a community land trust—a CLT—is one way of ensuring this happens. Like-minded residents come together to plan what their community needs, engaging in consultation with residents, and the national network is on hand to assist with providing advice and support. These homes can be of mixed tenure, and some CLTs run local post offices and shops—all vital for communities.
The most reverend Primates’ report features two CLTs: Keswick CLT and London CLT—two very different areas of the country. In both cases, local churches were there at the start. In Keswick’s case, they built on church land. There is obviously a lot of potential for this to roll out across the country. Being able to develop on church land, and with churches themselves as active partners in their communities, has been key in setting up the CLTs.
Decent, truly affordable housing is not a single political party issue; it stretches across all parties and none. A long-term, 20-year, deliverable housing strategy—not here today and gone tomorrow—will provide healthy communities, whether in the inner cities, market towns or deep rural areas on the edge of the moors.
The challenges for churches, of all denominations, is land. I was pleased to see that the Church Commissioners, the United Reform Church and the Methodists have all endorsed the report—all have land. In the case of the Church of England, the various diocese will need to know who to talk to if they want to support a new CLT. I sincerely hope that all diocese will embrace the challenge. How do they go about it? How do they bring a community’s project forward? The NCLT has a network of enabler hubs. I welcome the appointment of Bishop Guli Francis-Dehqani as the new bishop for housing. This is a huge step forward and gives a point of contact for those wanting to support affordable housing in their area. I welcome the move to allow the disposal of land for the charitable purpose of providing homes for the wider community at less than full market value. This is absolutely key.
The NCLT enabler hubs were supported by the Community Housing Fund from 2018 to 2020. This was a huge success and the driving force behind the increase in the total number of community-led homes in the pipeline from 5,800 homes to over 23,000 homes. However, that funding ended in March 2020 and there is no provision for a continuation in the Community Housing Fund money announced for this coming year. The research shows that, in order to be truly successful, community-led homes need four to five years of funding to become self-sustaining, not one or two years. The Government have achieved a great success and then pulled the rug out from under their feet.
Some of you may ask what is so special about a community land trust. The short answer is that communities themselves are in charge and the affordability element is enshrined in perpetuity—yes, in perpetuity. Currently, housing associations and local authorities may build affordable homes, but nothing like the 100,000 needed every year, and these homes are subject to the right to buy. While I respect the wish of tenants to buy their own homes, the current system does nothing to solve permanently the problem of affordability.
Affordability is key. I live in a village of some 300 inhabitants; we have a shop, a pub and a church, but the preschool has closed and there are no buses. There were local authority houses in years gone by, but all have been sold under the right to buy. Prices have risen exponentially. Young families have no chance of securing a home here. This is typical of thousands of rural villages. They are rapidly becoming middle class ghettos, where only the middle-aged and the middle classes can afford to live. But a mixed age range is needed to secure thriving communities, especially the chatter of young children.
There are a large number of homeless people in our community. One of them has been sleeping in our church on an annual basis. My noble friend Lord Shipley raised the Vagrancy Act. The vast majority of the homeless do not choose this way of life and the provision of overnight hostels is essential. Anything has to be better than a shop doorway.
I welcome this report and wish the most reverend Primates the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York, along with the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Manchester and the Bishop of Newcastle, every success with its implementation. If there is anything I can do to assist, I am happy to do it, including waving a supportive banner as delegates go into the General Synod later this year. Hopefully, this will not be needed. I look forward to the Minister’s response, which I sincerely hope will be positive on helping to provide good, affordable homes for all.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I will call the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, again, in the hope that he is now on the call. Lord Griffiths? No? We shall go to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England’s commission on producing such a seminal report and policy document on the need for a long-term housing strategy for England. I also commend the most reverend Primate for securing this debate on this important and timely issue, particularly given the pandemic situation, which has pointed up the fragility of human relationships and our interdependence on one another and our communities.
This housing report is set very much in social justice terms. I agree with the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury that the central tenet or thesis of the document is the need for good, affordable housing for all and to help people, particularly in the post-Covid scenario. Therefore, I look forward to the Minister’s response to this debate.
Access to suitable housing, whether in the social or private sphere, is a fundamental human right. Coming from Northern Ireland, I can cast my mind back to the civil rights movement there in the late 1960s, where access to housing was a major issue and was caught up in sectarian constitutional politics. One of the slogans of that campaign was “A house based on need and not on creed”. It is interesting to note that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive was formed out of that campaign in the early 1970s. It established an allocation system for social, or public authority, houses based on the principle of need. In fact, the housing associations allocate houses according to where people appear on the Housing Executive’s list. That principle has lasted to this very day. There is absolutely no doubt that housing provision and housing allocation should be based on need.
Access to suitable housing is particularly important during the pandemic and post-pandemic phases. People have to feel safe and secure. As we consider those from the BAME communities, many of whom feel marginalised and isolated, it is important that they have secure shelter within thriving, healthy communities with plenty of open space for recreation.
Therefore, this report from the most reverend Primates the Archbishops of Canterbury and York is very timely. It estimates that so many people are living in overcrowded, unaffordable or unsuitable homes. Responding to these issues, it makes a number of recommendations, all of which I support, aimed at those involved in the housing sector, including the Government. The report sets out a number of recommendations to address the issues, based on five core values: sustainable, safe, stable, sociable and satisfying for all. They should be central to any housing strategy or policy.
The report’s recommendations include actions for the Church of England, the Government and others involved in the housing sector. It recommends that the Church of England commits to using its land assets to promote truly affordable homes and calls on the Government to produce a 20-year housing strategy backed by an increase in public capital investment and a phased reduction in the price of land. It argues that, in the short term, the Government should review the social security system as it fails to provide adequate housing support for a large number of low-income households. I have argued for some time in your Lordships’ House for the need for a root and branch review of the social security system to focus on the income needs of individuals, which will obviously become more acute as a result of the pandemic.
Other recommendations aimed at a variety of those involved in the housing sector include ensuring longer-term security of tenure, introducing an explicit duty of care on landlords, improving the quality of temporary accommodation, and removing unsafe cladding from all buildings. I note the Government have stated that they welcome the leadership of the Church of England and that taking action to tackle our growing housing emergency and looking at how church land can be used to fight homelessness is welcome.
I have some questions for the Minister. What positive, concrete steps will the Government take, working with all sectors within the affordable and social housing regime, to increase the supply of houses and ensure that planning policy and strategy involve the healthy development of communities with recreational space? Will the Government bring forward a composite housing strategy encompassing homelessness, the affordable and social housing sectors, overcrowding, increasing the supply of houses, the rights of renters, unsafe cladding, energy efficiency of homes, and fuel poverty? What legislative provisions will be introduced to address standards in the private rented sector, houses in multiple occupation, and overcrowding to protect the health and well-being of occupants?
What further measures will the Government bring forward to ensure that all houses, apartments and flats in the public and private rented sectors are safe from fires and that all external cladding will be removed and replaced with fire-resistant materials to avoid another Grenfell, with such unwarranted loss of life? Will a comprehensive scheme to deal with external cladding issues be developed?
I have some experience in the housing field as a former Minister with responsibility for the provision of social housing in the mid-2000s in Northern Ireland. We did some significant work with the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ford. We concentrated on increasing the supply of housing, implementing funding models to bring in private finance for the provision of housing, working with the corporate banking sector and housing associations to increase the supply of housing, using government land for the construction of houses, thereby reducing the cost of housing units, and deploying the use of developer contributions. All this added the distinct multiplier effect that housing construction has on the economy and job creation. There was also a concentration on the redevelopment of housing and green open spaces in inner-city Belfast. Parts of these areas had been subject to sectarian violence. The houses were derelict and in urgent need of repair. Another aspect of housing renewal was the use of former military sites for housing provision. All this provided regeneration and added to the supply of housing.
I therefore think that there may be similarities to what we did in the Church of England’s report, which is focused on social justice, fairness, equality and accessibility in housing provision and recreational spaces, chiming with the fact that homes and communities should be created to be sustainable, safe, stable, sociable and satisfying for all.
In commending the work of the most reverend Primates, I wish them well in their endeavours in the housing field, and I hope that the Minister pays attention to the contents of the report and works with the Church of England and others in the housing field to implement many of the recommendations. I look forward to the Minister’s answers to the questions that I have asked today.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I have been asked to try calling the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, for a third time. Is Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach there and able to take part? I am afraid we are getting silence. I call the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, at a time when spirit-lifting is much needed, I can say with pleasure that my spirit has been lifted, as indeed has my heart, by this report from the Archbishop’s Commission. My heart and my spirit have been lifted because this report recognises that building homes and communities, not just houses, is of the deepest significance to the human dignity of every man, woman and child in this country and to the kind of society we aspire to build.
When I spoke in your Lordships’ House during the debate on the excellent report from the Economic Affairs Committee, Building More Homes, I began by referring to one of the greatest social thinkers in recent history: Archbishop William Temple. It is completely unsurprising that he has been a part of this debate and has been alluded by my episcopal colleagues, my most reverend friend the Archbishop of Canterbury and my right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester. It is not surprising because this report stands firmly in the William Temple tradition. He wrote:
“Every child should find itself a member of a family housed with decency and dignity, so it may grow up as a member of that basic community in a happy fellowship unspoilt by underfeeding or overcrowding, by dirty and drab surroundings.”
I think Archbishop William Temple would have approved of this report commissioned by his successors in York and Canterbury, with its five key values that homes should be sustainable, safe, stable, sociable and satisfying—homes which are a “delight” to return to.
Another key reason my heart has been lifted by this report, and why I feel I can speak in this debate with integrity as bishop who is a Church Commissioner, is that in the report we challenge ourselves as the Church at least as hard as we challenge others. This report begins by setting out actions and recommendations for the Church of England before moving on to recommendations for government and other actors in the housing market.
At the heart of the report is a recognition that we have to act together to stand a hope of realising the change that is needed. Moreover, there is no one overarching strategy, no one-size-fits-all solution to the challenges that face us. Each region of our country has a particular context, with particular problems to be addressed. Having been an archdeacon in south-east London and being now a bishop in the north-east of England, I know very well from experience how the contexts are so different.
I want to talk first of all about the challenge of sub-standard private housing across the north of England. A 2018 Northern Housing Consortium report, The Hidden Costs of Poor Quality Housing in the North, showed that across the north of England as a whole a major issue was the poor state of much of the existing housing stock, particularly in the owner-occupied sector. The report found that across the north there were 1 million owner-occupied homes and 354,000 privately rented homes that did not meet the decent homes standard. The report also found that nearly half of all non-decent homes in the north have at least one person with a long-term illness or disability living in them, well above the average for England. Owner-occupiers are often seen as asset rich, with the means to repair and improve their homes, but this study showed that many areas of the north have low-value, poor-quality houses with little or no equity. This has resulted in whole streets and neighbourhoods falling into disrepair. You are caught in a double bind: you cannot afford to invest and you cannot afford to move. What this means in human terms is that many people, many of them elderly or disabled, have been living in these homes during lockdown and will have experienced numerous difficulties, including damp, cold and cramped living conditions.
One of the few sources of funding for improvements in owner-occupied homes is the government green homes grant, as raised by my noble friend Lord Shipley. It is a £1.5 billion grant fund. The scheme is modest, allowing two-thirds of the cost, up to £5,000, for improvements. However, as my noble friend mentioned, the scheme has indeed been beset with problems, with reports of delays in vouchers being issued and problems with the application process. As a result, I understand that more than £1 billion is left unspent and only £320 million will be rolled over to next year. Can the Minister comment on the problems with the scheme and give us any encouragement that changes will be made to enable this funding to be spent on the improvements for which it was intended?
The decent homes programme has achieved a good level of success in the social housing sector, with only 9% of homes now not meeting the standard. Could the Minister comment on whether there are plans to address this serious problem in the private sector, for example, through increased home improvement grants, perhaps a new decent private homes programme, and new devolution housing deals?
The quality of our homes has always been at the heart of the quality of our lives, but during this past year the quality of our homes has become more important than ever. We have all had to spend more time in our homes than we could ever have imagined and, as a result, space in our homes has become an extremely precious resource. Having a spare room that can be used for home working or, perhaps even more importantly, for home schooling, has become an essential, so finally I would like to speak about the underoccupation charge.
The pandemic has highlighted the consequences for many of the underoccupation charge, commonly known as the bedroom tax. The charge falls on tenants living in council or social housing who face a reduction in housing benefit or universal credit if a room is deemed to be spare. Will the Minister say whether the Government will be reviewing the underoccupancy charge in the light of pupils’ experience during the pandemic, especially with the experience of those on low incomes in cramped conditions?
I began with the words of Archbishop William Temple and I will end with the words of Holly, who lives with her partner and two preschool children in a Karbon Homes property. Karbon Homes is a housing association that builds and manages around 30,000 homes across the north-east and Yorkshire. Just over a year ago, Holly and her family were living in a small, cramped, two-bedroom property. Three months before lockdown, they moved into a larger Karbon Homes house with a garden. Holly has given me permission to give voice to her words today. She says: “The house has been amazing this year. We were so lucky to have moved in when we did, just three months before lockdown happened. We got the garden turfed right at the start of lockdown, with a slide and a swing. That took a massive load off us as the kids could play out in the gorgeous weather we had. If we had lockdown in our old house, that would have put a massive strain on our relationship. It’s nice here with our neighbours because we have all supported one another. The whole street has been fantastic.” These words from a young woman show even more powerfully than the words of Archbishop William Temple the human flourishing that results when we build homes and communities, not just houses, homes that embody the five values—sustainable, safe, stable, sociable and satisfying—at the heart of this Coming Home report.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, as a member of the Greater London Council, I had comprehensive involvement in housing. The newly built Harold Hill estate in Havering was one of my responsibilities. We had regular meetings with the residents. I was shocked by information from a bride-to-be that she had set out her wedding dress on the large bed only to find that it was beyond use as green sludge had fallen from the ceiling and straight on to it. Investigation revealed that the fault was a lack of ventilation and the turning off of the heating system when the residents when off to work. Every flat in the whole development had to have ventilation introduced.
We all know the importance of housing to our physical and mental well-being, and that this pandemic has put even more strain on people and housing alike. To build more housing or to make more of it available, we need both funds and land. It is the latter aspect that I want to talk about. In her more recent days as a local councillor in London, my daughter talked about her frustration with a number of large development sites in her ward that had already secured planning permission but were coming back for yet another application, and then another. She had at least two large sites with three or four live planning permissions, yet still the applicant did not build. Every time, they returned to the council seeking more and more on the land for commercial gain, constantly pushing the boundaries, yet the growth in affordable housing was minimal by comparison.
I know that the Local Government Association has estimated that more than one million homes have been given planning permission but have not yet been built, with nine in 10 planning applications approved by councils. In addition, it estimates that a further million homes have been earmarked for councils for development but have not brought forward for planning. This Government should be looking at sites with live planning permission and at measures to encourage building on these sites—dare I say it, perhaps even considering punitive steps for those who do not build on large sites where they already have current planning permission, such as not being allowed to apply for another planning application for the site for five years. This would have the advantage of crystallising the applicant’s mind on what they wish to apply for in the first instance and of using their and council officers’ time and resources wisely. For every developer who returns for a new planning application, precious time and resources that could be used elsewhere are spent. It really clogs up the system. The Government need to look at how to get developers to actually build and must not take the planning process away from local councils, which already pass planning applications and know what works best for their area.
I also add my voice to the argument that building high is not the answer people want, even here in London. The pandemic has illustrated this further. People want a home—not a flat in some 20-storey tower—where they have proper space, indoors and outdoors, and can get to know their neighbours and be part of a community; nor do they want to be part of Airbnb, which has taken away many London homes.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the National Housing Federation, the representative body for housing associations in England. I wholeheartedly welcome this report. The most reverend Primates set their commission the task of reimagining housing policy and practice and it has done them proud.
In the face of a national crisis in meeting housing need, with millions living in unaffordable, cramped accommodation, which the pandemic has exposed as a danger to our national health, the report seeks cross- party consensus on the development of a long-term housing strategy that will provide a stable and sustainable solution. It does this in a most refreshing way: it looks into the Church’s own backyard, so to speak—reminiscent of the saying, “Physician, heal thyself”—and seeks first the commitment of the Church’s leaders, clergy and congregations to put their land and other resources into delivering the social and environmental benefits of meeting local housing need and building viable communities. It reminds not just the Church but the rest of us that it is the poorest and the most marginalised who suffer the burden of our housing crisis. This is put into stark relief by all the data emerging from the pandemic, which reinforces the point that the worst-off have been the worst hit.
If we look at the facts, over 8 million people in England are in housing need. This is likely only to increase as the pandemic progresses, as we see unemployment levels rising, together with the number of people claiming universal credit. Research from the National Housing Federation reveals that for 3.8 million of those in housing need, social rented housing would be the best solution. However, 1.6 million households are on the social housing waiting list. Providers could meet that need with the right funding support and access to land.
The report’s recommendation to the Church Commissioners to use their land assets for the development of more truly affordable homes will, I hope, be embraced by the Church at all levels. The report looks at other positive developments, such as the commitment to the stewardship code and seeking collaboration with the Charity Commission. It commits the Church Commissioners to engaging in innovative partnerships with others, particularly councils and housing associations, to fulfil the mission. Housing associations will gladly work with them to achieve this.
I hope that the actions of the Church Commissioners will encourage other landowners to follow their example. I hope that they inspire the Government to recognise social housing as fundamental to a society where no one is left behind and where communities thrive.
As the report emphasises, this crisis will not be resolved without government action—not short-term fixes as Ministers come and go, but
“a bold, coherent, long-term housing strategy, focused on those in greatest need.”
I hope the Government will listen. They have committed to building affordable homes through the affordable homes programme and I welcome this. But that will not go anywhere near far enough to address the crisis we face. The very word “affordable” is a misnomer, as other speakers have said. For those in high-price areas, it is impossible to contemplate finding 80% of market rates—the so-called affordable rate.
We need to build 90,000 socially rented homes a year, as well as provide adequate supported houses for those with additional needs. This will not only address the housing crisis that we face, but help to relieve pressure on stretched public services. I will give just one example. Anchor Hanover housing association recently modelled the value of a supported housing tenancy in one of their schemes for older people and found that every extra care housing place can generate up to £6,700 in savings to local public services, so the economic case for investing in different tenures of housing is as strong as the moral one.
The report does not shirk the need for remediation of existing homes. One of its six key themes is sustainability and the challenges facing the housing and construction sector in delivering the Government’s aspirations on energy efficiency and decarbonisation. It is worth recalling that 80% of all the homes that will exist in 2050 have already been built. That is a huge challenge for retrofitting carbon-neutral heating and power systems. The Committee on Climate Change has already said that
“We will not meet our targets for emissions reduction without near complete decarbonisation of the housing stock.”
The Government have made some large sums available, which are most welcome, but the resources available to the sector are not nearly sufficient to respond to the challenges of safety and cladding, remediation and decarbonisation, and building the new homes that we need.
The report is right to emphasise the need for a long-term strategy to address the housing shortage in this country, and other noble Lords have echoed that today. Coupled with clear objectives, the report identifies the way in which housing associations, local authorities and the Church, together with the Government, can deliver this mission. It is only by taking a holistic approach, focusing on everything from remediation to reforming the welfare system, that we begin to address the chronic housing need in England. This can only be delivered by a long-term strategy, which requires cross-party agreement. I hope that, today, the Minister commits to starting that process. Surely the inequalities in this country and the many divisions that have been reinforced by the pandemic require a more imaginative political response.
Housing associations stand ready to work with the Government to build the homes that this country needs. They are ready to work with local church groups, local authorities and charity partners to deliver the safe, high-quality and sustainable homes that we need. But I cannot stress enough the long-term certainty that is needed from the Government in order to sign off ambitious business plans to retrofit, remediate and build the truly affordable homes that we so desperately need. I hope that the Minister commits to a speedy response to this excellent report from the most reverend Primate’s commission.
Lord Crisp (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a real pleasure and privilege to join this debate and hear so many excellent speeches from noble Lords around the Room. I welcome this important and thoughtful report. It is wonderful to see the Church leading by example and making significant and long-term commitments about its own land and resources. Something that has come through in this debate for me, starting with my noble friend Lord Best, but also from other noble Lords, is thinking about which other major landowners could be persuaded to do the same. What a tremendous moment it would be if more land became available more easily from some of the great institutions of our society to create affordable housing and address the needs of millions, including many young people. The Church would really be blazing a trail.
The report reminds us that it is the responsibility of us all, not just the Government and the Church, to address what is a national scandal. I do not just mean an acute scandal, represented by the appalling Grenfell Tower tragedy, but a long-term decline in standards of housing, hidden from most of us, who are, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, pointed out, sitting here in our comfortable homes—I speak personally here, of course.
How is it that, in the fifth or sixth richest country in the world, so many people live in poor conditions that are damaging their health, and so many of them, and others, are worried about their housing for the future and where they will live tomorrow, next month and next year? For some, the question is where they will sleep tonight. Providing decent shelter for ourselves and our families is one of the most basic human needs and human rights. We have seen a long decline, described in many reports over recent years, and this report rightly calls for a long-term strategy. It rightly calls for affordable homes and stronger communities. The two are intimately linked and I, like others, support the values that the report contains.
Coming almost at the end of the speakers’ list, I will not try to repeat what others have said, but I want to pick up some of the wider issues of quality, health and planning. In doing so, I emphasise that this is about the quantity of houses as well as quality of houses—both are important.
Covid, as the most reverend Primate and other noble Lords have said, has shone a light on the great inequalities in our society, housing being one of them. How many people have been trapped by lockdown in poor, unhealthy housing—sometimes literally trapped with abusive partners? Covid may have emphasised these problems, but even in good times, as other noble Lords have said, poor housing causes major problems of damp, pollution, cold and much more, damaging the health and lives of the people who live there.
Taking this health perspective beyond the individual, housing is vital to the NHS care system and its functioning. I know from a report I did on mental health how many people are incarcerated in mental hospitals simply because adequate appropriate housing is not available to them. Of course, the NHS and other public services, including care homes, need key workers who need key workers’ housing.
Housing and health are intimately linked but surely we have some of this the wrong way round? At the moment, our houses should be enhancing people’s lives, rather than damaging them, and helping us thrive. I noticed that both the most reverend Primate and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester talked about flourishing and human flourishing, no doubt intentionally going back to pre-Christian times and to Aristotle and eudaimonia: enabling people to live a good life, a life worth living, human flourishing. I think this should be a great theme—going beyond housing—for our society at this time.
Things are connected to housing, not just health, which is something that the great Victorian reformers understood. Good housing is good for the economy and for society, as well as for the individual. We have a great tradition in this country, from those reformers and model villages via Homes for Heroes, garden cities and the Parker Morris standards, which meant that we built very decent houses in the first half of the 20th century. However, more recently we have gone down a different route. There are excellent houses being built, of course, but there is too much small housing, too cheaply built, that maximises land values and investment returns, rather than better-quality housing that improves individual lives and, in the longer term, has better long-term social and economic returns.
The Government’s current approach to planning seems set to reinforce some of these problems, taking away power from local planners and passing it to national politicians and, in some cases, effectively to major developers. The Minister will say that the Government have promoted design standards and encouraged planning authorities to set local standards, but there are too many ways to get round these, particularly for permitted developments. Can the Government really believe that these measures are enough to turn the tide and lead to a new generation of homes where people can flourish?
I believe that we need some mandatory basic standards in areas such as space, daylight, insulation—for sound as well as heat—access to green spaces and amenities, and more, if we are to see the transformation that is needed. Taking this further, I hope to introduce a healthy homes Bill after the Queen’s Speech—depending of course on the ballot. The Bill has been drafted by the Town and Country Planning Association and would create a new unifying duty for all new housing on promoting health, safety and well-being, and would introduce a small number of basic standards for all housing. I very much hope, of course, that the Church, as well as the Government, will support it.
This introduction of standards need not be bureaucratic: they can be simple and must be small in number, and must of course permit some local variation —for example, access to local amenities, as I mentioned, would be very different in rural areas from in the centre of cities. But the Government have already accepted the principle of standards by introducing some. For example, they have introduced space standards for permitted development—although, as I understand it, only in response to pressure from their Back-Benchers in another place, rather than as a matter of principle.
I have asked the Minister why space standards are there for permitted development but not for all new housing. From his response, I understand that local authorities have the option to include nationally described space standards in local planning policies, subject to demonstrating viability and need—it seems to me that that last qualification is very important and a major let-out clause. But I do not understand why, if mandatory space standards without that qualification are appropriate for permitted development, those same standards are not appropriate for all new housing. I would be grateful if he could answer that point today.
This approach could even save some bureaucracy. I am not an expert in this field, but I understand that there are real issues, and sometimes clashes, between planning and building regulations. A duty on health, safety and well-being would unify and could be used to simplify some of those regulations.
I finish by returning to the most reverend Primate. I congratulate the Church on this excellent report, all it contains and everything that it may lead to. It is vital that the Government now respond positively, making a commitment to literally build back better, creating homes that enhance health and well-being, that are good in the long term for our society and economy, and that promote human flourishing. As the most reverend Primate said, this is about the heart of our society: what it is, who we are and where our treasure is.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, around 8 million people in England currently live in overcrowded, unaffordable or unsuitable homes—surely this is not correct. A good home is a place that enables us to live harmoniously with the natural environment; it is a place where we feel safe and where we are able to put down roots and belong to a community. Homes should be sustainable, safe, stable, sociable and satisfying. Unfortunately, for many people, their reality is different.
There is a collective responsibility on landlords, homeowners, developers and, most importantly, the Government to build sustainable, good homes. The commission recommends that the Church of England commits to using its land assets to promote more truly affordable homes through developments that deliver on the five core values mentioned earlier.
Housing has become a big problem for people who do not own their own home and are dependent on landlords and developers. The problem becomes bigger for people who have insufficient income. In short, the Government have to have a bold and coherent long-term housing strategy, focused on those in greatest need.
In this Covid era, many people have ended up becoming homeless, which, in turn, puts enormous pressure on the local authorities, whose resources are being depleted. It is a vicious circle where the poorest become victims. There are many families with children whose future is ruined. We have all heard about teachers finding students with dirty clothes, hungry and dependent on free meals.
The Church of England must release its land to good building developers who will develop suitable, affordable housing in England. There is very little undeveloped land, particularly in the cities, and, in some cases, sports fields and green spaces are useful spaces, owned by private developers. Unless the Government invest in affordable housing, through a housing association, the problem cannot be solved.
As an immigrant from east Africa in 1972, I found that churches right across the UK allowed my community to use them for our prayers. The church pastors and bishops gave advice on how to find houses to rent, until we became self-sufficient. The Church never considered what our faith was; they were happy to see us praying. Prayers are the cornerstone of the Church of England.
Lord Birt (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am unaware of any area of our national life more in need of our attention than housing. I strongly commend the initiative of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in prompting this valuable and informed debate.
More than 4 million households in England are living in non-decent homes, as defined by the English Housing Survey. One million are living in homes unfit for human habitation, as defined by Shelter. Almost a million now live in overcrowded accommodation. Moreover, 300,000 people in the UK, including 200,000 children, are homeless. They are living in temporary accommodation, crashing with friends or family or camping on the street. Rough sleeping has doubled in 10 years. If noble Lords want to experience the appalling conditions under which many Britons live, I strongly recommend Channel 5’s “Can’t Pay, Won’t Pay”, where noble Lords can witness real deprivation for themselves through the eyes of the bailiffs.
Housing issues affect not just the poor but every level of society. For instance, a quarter of 20 to 34 year-olds still live at home with their parents—up 1 million in the past 20 years. The reasons for the sorry state of our housing are all too easy to see. On the one hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, rightly reminded us, demand has grown, most significantly because our population has expanded by 10 million over the past 20 years. Over the same period, demographic change has increased the number of households by 3 million, in part because we are living longer and in part because we are living alone more often.
At the same time, the young are struggling to buy. House prices relative to income have doubled over the past 40 years. Post 2008, mortgages became harder to obtain. As a result, overall home ownership in the UK has declined, reversing the trend of a century. Those most in need have seen spend on housing benefit flatten then fall, adding to their pressure to find a home.
Against this mix of factors affecting demand there are corresponding issues of supply. We have the oldest housing stock in Europe—much of it substandard—and a low rate of demolition and replenishment. We have not built new towns. Small builders and local development are in decline. Large developers, on the one hand, are hoarding land, and on the other, are experiencing prolonged planning delays. It is therefore no surprise that, in the past 10 years, we have built on average fewer than 200,000 units per year.
Even more strikingly, there has been a vast decline in the availability of social housing. Local authority provision has declined by two-thirds in 50 years. The stock of housing association homes has increased but, overall, social housing provision has dropped by 2 million homes since its peak. In 2018-19, councils in England built only 5,000 units of social housing. Set against our need, what a shocking figure that is. This massive drop in housing provision for the most needy is the most critical factor in our housing crisis. Of course, the unmet demand for social housing has been taken up by the private rental sector, which has doubled in 20 years to more than 4 million units—more or less the same level now as the whole of the social housing sector.
Academic and other estimates put the present shortfall between demand and supply for housing as of the order of 1 million homes. This position will worsen, for our population continues to grow and will soon reach 70 million. If current demographic trends also continue, we will need of the order of 3 million to 4 million additional units over the next 10 to 20 years to bring demand and supply back into some balance.
As many of your Lordships have identified, we need not just numbers but the right mix of homes—of mainstream, affordable and social housing. We are a crowded island, so we should not and must not trespass any further on to our precious green spaces. One organisation guilty of trying to do that is the Church of England itself, with its willingness to sell glebe farmland for commercial development.
We need what we manifestly do not now have—almost all who have spoken have said this: a coherent, holistic, long-term framework of real ambition which grapples with the difficult, stubborn mix of factors affecting both demand and supply. My mother’s and my father’s generation rose to the challenge in the post-war years, when build rose to 400,000 units per year. I ask the Minister: can this generation rise to the challenge?
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I must start by saying how unusual and how sad it is to have a housing debate without the voice of Lord Greaves. I am sure that many of us were very shocked at his sudden death. He will be greatly missed.
Like every other noble Lord who has spoken, I welcome this report and the way in which the most reverend Primate introduced it. It is an opportunity to welcome a report of unusual coherence and inclusivity, and I am not surprised that it has had such a positive response—I think it really speaks to the nation.
What is particularly impressive is not only the bold and radical view that the Church has taken about its own role and resources in the long term, particularly about its own land and assets, but how alive it is to the range of urgent issues facing families in many different situations, which, as many noble Lords have said, have become so much worse over the past year. It is worse for rough sleepers, who were already incredibly vulnerable, worse for people with mental health difficulties and a precarious grasp on housing, worse for tenants who had a temporary reprieve but do not know how long that will last, and worse for mortgage holders fearful of losing their jobs.
We have never spent so much time in our own homes, and they have never felt safer, but we also remember the minority for whom they have never felt more dangerous. Coming out of lockdown will bring terrible uncertainties for millions of people. While temporary solutions have been found, we all know that the emergency planning that has been forced on the Government will have made many of the systemic problems worse.
As we know, the gaps between housing supply and demand and affordability and income have become wider each year. The devastating reality of what this has meant has been laid bare by the pandemic, which has preyed on the poorest, the worst housed and the most overcrowded communities. Yesterday, the British Academy, in another very timely and powerful report, said that
“the pandemic has exposed, exacerbated and solidified existing inequalities in society. It has also made some individuals and groups living in particular places and communities even more vulnerable than before”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said, where you live has long been a shameful determinant of life chances and life expectancy. Decent housing must be in the front line as we prepare for the next pandemic.
A better time and case for a radical delivery plan for decent, affordable housing—indeed, for harnessing the power of place—could not be made. Building homes, however decent, without investing in community and its resources, is simply to design in isolation and failure. If we design in good design, we build in resilience, neighbourliness and responsibility, as well as beauty, in places that can provide for older people to age in place, a right that is denied to so many of them today—I should say “us”, not “them”. This argument was powerfully set out five years ago in a report by a Select Committee of this House, Building Better Places. I wish so much that our advice had been taken then.
In this report, the Church understands all this. It gets it. It has seized the moment and, at this time when the future seems so problematic, it has challenged the Government to come up with an explicit long-term framework for affordable homes. It offers the hope that new thinking, new partnership and new policies are within our grasp. To achieve this, it has mapped out how shared responsibility works. While there are things that only the Government can do, equally there are some things only the Church can now do, and it will do it. One of those things is, of course, for it to use its assets and land to help to house the nation. I know that it will not be easy, but I am sure the Church will get all the help it can use to deal with the legal and charitable obstacles. I hope that the Government will take a lead in this. When does the Minister plan to meet the Archbishop and his team to discuss implementing this report? I would like an answer this evening.
I am saddened that the Government seems so deaf to the argument on safety. The report states unequivocally that the Government must make a commitment to remove all unsafe cladding by June 2022 and provide complete protection for leaseholders from remediation and other associated costs. Yet, as we know, that was rejected this week in another place. Perhaps the Minister is prepared to tell us why. I say to him that it is not too late to change his mind. There will never be a better opportunity for brave thinking. I think the country is more than ready for this. I can see the Minister thinks that is rather funny, but it is a very serious point.
The Government have a unique opportunity to take a good, hard look at what the consultation process on their White Paper on planning has produced and to go back to the drawing board, because there is a strong consensus that the policies set out in it are not going to meet the Government’s targets. They simply do not match the hour or the need—I shall explain why—and neither do they in any way reflect the way the pandemic has brought to life the value of community, the importance of green space and quiet neighbourhoods, and the extraordinary reliance we place on local services for lifesaving. For all these reasons, I think the Government have an opportunity and a reason to look again at the White Paper and particularly at its definitions of social infrastructure.
There are other reasons too. First, in the consultation responses, there is genuine anxiety that a single infrastructure levy will pit housing against other infrastructure projects and that housing will lose out. The Chartered Institute of Housing, the RTPI, the TCPA and the Federation of Master Builders, which the Government need on their side, are very concerned that
“affordable housing will in essence be competing (unless ring-fenced) with other resource-hungry infrastructure needs, such as transport.”
Can the Minister say whether affordable housing will be ring-fenced? Put quite simply, the Government are facing the prospect of not meeting their own targets for housing.
Secondly, the White Paper contradicts the Coming Home report in another fundamental way on sustainability. We have had many arguments in this House on the failure to address the energy inefficiencies of the current housing stock. The TCPA says that the White Paper creates “real uncertainty” about the role of planning in tackling climate change as it fails to provide detailed explanations of how low-carbon reductions will be achieved via the new framework.
Thirdly, there are real fears that the new centralised emphasis will reduce local choice and public trust in the system. This is compounded by the deep concerns over the Government’s controversial permitted development rights—not only do they remove the full rights to object provided through the planning system but developers are no longer under any obligation to provide any affordable housing at all. We are going backwards.
Fourthly and finally, Coming Home places welcome emphasis on the fact that homes should be a delight and a joy to live in. How can this be achieved when the path of permitted development has already permitted the conversion of office blocks into rabbit hutches for housing?
The Government have already shown that they can change their mind—for example, on how they calculate housing need, although, again, I think the new definition is far too narrow and excludes the important priorities of health—and it is very good to do so. My plea to the Minister is that he be brave and think as boldly as the Church has done. Forget about fiddling around with the planning system; that is what Governments do when they do not want to tackle the difficult issues such as land hoarding. Be aware that planning changes usually slow things down rather than speed them up. Shift the emphasis away from the opportunistic developer and rebuild and reinvest in local authority capacity to plan and deliver social housing. Let that be his legacy, because there will never be a better time to do the difficult stuff.
We have seen so many barriers broken down over the past year while we have all been living inside so many barriers. In every research lab, hospital, care home and ordinary home, people have done what they thought impossible a year ago. If we can change so much, so quickly and so beneficially, there is no reason at all why we cannot realise the ambitions set out in this important report, which I know will have enormous resonance.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, it is always an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who gave us a very timely reminder of some of the Select Committee reports that have pushed the very issues we have discussed this afternoon. I congratulate the most reverend Primates the Archbishops of Canterbury and York—his return is most welcome—on securing this “Easter is the new Christmas” debate and thank other noble Peers for their valuable contributions. I also congratulate the most reverend Primates and their commissioners on this excellent report, Coming Home; long-term strategy and politicians are often complete strangers, and this is a valuable way of getting all parties to the table.
Having first worked with Professor Christine Whitehead at Shelter in the mid-1990s, it comes as no surprise to me that she and others on the commission have not, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said in his introduction, shied away from challenging the Church. I think that all parties which have had their hands on the levers of power over the past 40 years need to take a look back, challenge their own moments of power, take off the rose-tinted spectacles and understand how we got here and what we need to do to improve the situation.
When I first met Christine in the mid-1990s, the picture was very different. There were other challenges—new builds of social housing were rapidly disappearing and housing associations were increasing and coming into their own—but the private sector was not the wobbly and widely used crutch that it is now is for a whole host of poorer families who should not be there in the first place, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, described, and it has doubled in 20 years, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, described so well. As we have seen with some of Shelter’s campaigns, they are often unwelcome customers when landlords refuse to accept anybody in receipt of benefits.
It is particularly sad to be debating this issue given the loss of one of our own yesterday: Lord Greaves, a champion of local government. I associate myself with the many tributes we have heard today. He was a strong advocate of localism and believed profoundly in community politics: the empowerment of individuals in communities to have a say over their own lives and destinies. I see that theme echoed in the report we are discussing today.
That this report lays down the challenge for parties to all work together is so important, and the answer to all the questions is of course “yes”, including on working together to change the charity rules.
Both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat 2019 manifestos committed to building 300,000 new homes per year. Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party also set an annual target of 100,000 new homes for social rent although, as my noble friend Lord Shipley pointed out, only 7,000 were built last year. The precise mechanisms by which we get there may vary, but the target remains the same.
However, just like social care, this debate often drops into the “too difficult” or “too expensive” column. As the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, made clear, the disproportionate and eye-watering expenditure—the current expenditure on benefits, for instance, rather than the capital expenditure on bricks and mortar—continues to be such a waste and limits our potential to save. Why do you have to go back over 50 years, to 1969, to find the last time that over 300,000 new homes were built in the UK? All too often, landowners and developers are incentivised to sit on their hands and watch as their assets increase. If any Government change the rules, they will just hold tight until the next Government change them back.
The speeches today showed considerable agreement that the only way to crack the housing crisis is with a bold, long-term, cross-party commitment. I, too, pay tribute to the excellent conclusions of the Affordable Housing Commission of the noble Lord, Lord Best—and let us not forget that commissions of the charities Shelter and Crisis. All have concluded that building social housing is critical to underpinning any of these future strategies so that, regardless of tenure, people have safe, secure and affordable housing.
As I was writing this speech, I thought of the themes of this report as the six “S”s, or maybe the five “S”s plus. We agree to those standards; they are well put. On sustainability, I fear the cladding scandal of the future as today—right now—homes that are not up to the zero-carbon standard are being built. As the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, pointed out, the cost of retrofitting will be disproportionately high and, yet again, a whole cohort of people will be placed in a shocking position. It will cost today’s new homeowners thousands to put right and I fear that we have learned nothing from the cladding crisis.
Yesterday, I spoke to someone who, just over a year ago, was encouraged and enticed to be a first-time buyer by this Government through the Help to Buy scheme. She saved everything she had to buy a flat in Manchester but, following the Grenfell tragedy, its cladding is now deemed unsafe, with a hefty bill of £50,000 to put it right. On what planet is she liable for that? Our party fully supports the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester today and the earlier description of the vote in the Commons this week as a “grave error”. My noble friend Lady Pinnock will continue to work across all sides of the House to ensure that leaseholders are not made liable for the incompetence of others. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on this.
The most intriguing of the six “S”s is the aim of sacrifice, which is almost the opposite of nimby. I very much enjoyed the insight from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, into the experience of being a constituency MP, where this area is often a challenge, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, of being a local representative.
The sacrifice the Church of England has made is to offer more of its land for truly affordable housing developments. As we have already heard, 200,000 acres of land is enough to cover New York City. I applaud the Church’s change in strategy on the use of its land. In a debate in the Commons on 10 March, the Minister, Eddie Hughes, said that the Government are reviewing their land. Can the Minister share with us the planned timetable and methodology for this? Will it follow the pattern set by the work of the Church of England and Knight Frank? As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, also mentioned, where is the other potential for this? What is the latest news on, say, MoD land, given our recent reduction in boots on the ground?
Land is a critical part of this equation, as my noble friend Lord Shipley described. I particularly welcome the description of community land trusts by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Stroud. If anyone has not been to see the development in Tower Hamlets, I would thoroughly recommend it; it is well worth a visit.
The value of a home goes beyond pounds and pence. That the Church might now be now free to decline the highest bid from deep-pocketed developers—and that “value” can be determined by impact on people, not profit—is a great example.
The past year in particular and the Covid pandemic have, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Goudie and Lady Andrews, said, thrown into the spotlight the significance of a home—a real home. Young children whom I know of in my community were incarcerated in small high-rise flats for the whole of lockdown. Older children went from bed, then got up and worked at their laptop —if they had one—then back to bed again. This is happening and has been happening. It is shocking. There have been even worse experiences in temporary accommodation, as described by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York.
Too many flats are wholly inadequate and many are unhealthy, some with social landlords from whom we should all expect better—like the Croydon flats featured on ITV this week—but often with the more unscrupulous, rogue and unregulated private landlords. Local housing is not set as a median rent, as is so rightly recommended in this report, but at the bottom 30%—and with a freeze coming down the track. This completely constrains tenants, particularly poorer ones, from exerting any kind of buying power or choice to hold their landlords to account. What a far cry from the decency and dignity described by the right reverent Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. While the threat of Section 21 no-fault evictions continues, tenants in the PRS will not have the security that they need. Over the winter lockdown alone, even with a stay on the use of bailiffs, there were, I understand, 500 private renters evicted.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, pointed out, 8 million people live in unsuitable, unaffordable or unsafe housing, and are currently in need. That these homes may have contributed to higher rates of death due to overcrowding and poor conditions is something that the Government must fully commit to examining in any future inquiry into Covid-19; I hope that the Minister will do so today. As Inside Housing recently reported through its own work and through research by the Health Foundation, one in three households in England had at least one major housing problem related to overcrowding, affordability or quality going into the coronavirus crisis. Housing conditions have affected people’s ability to shield from the virus. We know of the success of Everybody In, which got rough sleepers off the streets and into accommodation. It saved hundreds of lives and avoided 20,000 infections, according to the NAO, in stark contrast with what happened in, say, New York City, where rough sleepers were put together into emergency shelters and the infection spread with dire consequences.
I hope that this commission’s ambitions—particularly for 20 years’ time and the visualisation of what it will look like—will become a reality. I simply ask the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury to explain in a little more granular detail how he intends to knock heads together and get politicians round the table if all three of us say “yes” in answer to his questions.
I was surprised in the post-World War Two scenario that we were not given a sense of Macmillan—someone who was a businessman and understood the value of bricks and mortar and created truly affordable homes. It would be great to see something like that.
Joy and expectation is something that everyone should have when coming home. I hope that this becomes a reality.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, I declare my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, chair of the Heart of Medway housing association, a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd and a trustee of the United St Saviour’s Charity.
As other noble Lords have done, I want to pay tribute to Lord Greaves. I was very sorry to learn of Tony’s passing yesterday. He was an exemplary Member of this House. Those who knew him here and those who knew him when he served on Lancashire County Council and Pendle Borough Council talk of a kind, good man who was a formidable political opponent and cared deeply for his community. We will all miss him very much.
Like other noble Lords, I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for enabling the House to debate the Motion before the Grand Committee today. I place on record my thanks to the most reverend Primates the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York for establishing the commission that produced this report, Coming Home. I congratulate the commissioners on an excellent report. It is very welcome at this time as we seek to tackle the housing crisis which, as the report points out, needs more than just building houses to solve. We need homes, truly affordable homes, in sustainable communities. As the report tells us,
“homes should be sustainable, safe, stable, sociable and satisfying.”
It also points out that, for many, the reality falls far short of that vision. I very much agree with the definition put forward by the most reverend Primate on that. However, it is a vision that we must all strive to achieve. My noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick reminded us of the struggle in Northern Ireland for housing justice and the success of the civil rights campaign there to deliver housing based on need, which must always be the case to begin to deliver social justice. She said that without social justice, you cannot deliver the stable communities we all want to see.
My noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe drew attention to the number of people on housing waiting lists and to how fundamental social housing is to solving the housing crisis we face today. She described how, with the right support, the social housing sector and housing associations can meet the challenge that we face. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, pointed out to the Grand Committee that many of the landowners in this country should do the right thing and follow the example of the Church of England to make better use of their land to deliver for homes and for our citizens. As the noble Lord said, housing should be about enhancing your life. I often say to my noble friend Lady Kennedy how lucky we have been during the pandemic; we should remember that we are the lucky people here. I very much agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, when he talked about Parker Morris standards and how much your health is affected by the quality of the home you live in.
I have told the House many times that I grew up in council accommodation in Walworth, just south of the Elephant and Castle. The property was warm, safe and dry, and it enabled us all to flourish. We never had lots of money, and my parents, immigrants to this country from Ireland, often had to have two jobs to put food on the table, but the rent was paid every week and my parents always worked, paid their taxes and never claimed a penny of benefit until they retired and started claiming their old age pension. There is nothing special about that; those are the sort of immigrants who come to our country to make a life for themselves. We were able to go on holiday every summer though, usually to the west of Ireland where my parents came from, and where even in August it managed to rain most days. We were looked after well and were happy, safe and secure. I have good memories of my childhood, playing football in Kennington Park, swimming in Camberwell Public Baths and going to East Street Market with my school friends. I also got a Saturday job, which gave me my ability to talk to anyone about anything, even if I knew nothing about what I was talking about. Some say that that has served me well in this noble House. That security was no doubt due in part to the home we were able to live in with my parents at a rent they could afford. Southwark Council provided that home, and I am very grateful to it.
My noble friend Lord Blunkett referred to Faith in the City, and he is right to remind us of that report. I agree with him that we need this report to have the same effect to help all of us, in parties and in government, and, frankly, anyone who wants to address the problems we face today as a country, to ensure that the conditions that the poorest in our society live in are better. It will be better for all of us, for families and children, if we can improve their health and their lives.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, also made valid points about affordability and affordable homes, and I agree with him. Let us be clear: the term “affordable” is a misnomer and we should just not use it anymore. In many parts of the country these homes are not affordable, so we should banish that term in that respect completely.
I talk to my parents every Sunday evening, and we often say, “How do young families cope?”. Rent is anything but affordable, as I have said, and the conditions that some people have to live in are truly shocking. About three years ago, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and I went out at six in the morning on a series of housing raids. We got in a van with a load of police and council officers from Newham and visited a number of properties that had been identified as having issues. The mayor of Newham, Rokhsana Fiaz, came with us. We called at various properties and the conditions we found were shocking. Honestly, I could not believe the conditions we saw.
We knocked on the door at one house which was apparently a home for a single family. There was a family living in every room in the house. There was one substandard bathroom and one substandard kitchen for everyone in the property to use. In every bedroom the electrical sockets were overloaded and it was very dangerous. I remember that a police officer went down to the basement and came back and said, “Can we all move out of this property because there is only one scaffold pole holding up the main hall.” Then we had to bring the building control people in. That is no way for people to live. This is one of the richest countries in the world, and this is one of the richest cities in the world. If any noble Lords want a trip out with Newham they should do it because it is truly shocking.
I agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that many of the problems we have trouble with today have their genesis in poor-quality housing and the sheer lack of housing. Sadly, the point the noble Lord made about people wanting more homes but not wanting them in their area is not just in Hertfordshire but is repeated all over our country. It is something that we need to tackle.
As I have said, I grew up in council accommodation, but today I and all my siblings are homeowners. It is perfectly reasonable to want to own your own home. It gives you more security, and as you get older that becomes even more important. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle talked about how different the housing problems and challenges are in different parts of the country. I lived in the east Midlands for many years, and I recall going to Worksop in north Nottinghamshire. There were streets of houses there almost falling down. People were not living in many of the properties. That is very different from the problems in other parts of the country. I think there are lots of housing crises in different parts of the country that are very different but they all need to be dealt with. That is a really important point that we need to get on top of.
The housing market today is not helping the situation. You could say that it is making the situation worse. The Government have an obsession about home ownership. The problem is that they create numerous schemes, often aimed at helping first-time buyers but, in my opinion, they do not have the intended effect. They often cause more problems. We need an emphasis on truly affordable social and private housing. As I have said much of what is described as affordable housing is sadly not affordable at all.
Living in reasonably priced, social rented or privately rented homes enables you to save for a deposit to buy a home. It is what people used to do. It is what I did. When I rented a private home, I saved up money until I could afford a deposit. Today, the deposits required are enormous. I live in a very ordinary terraced house in Lewisham. There is nothing special about where I live at all. Today, I could not afford to buy the home I bought 17 years ago. I could not afford the deposit, and that is ridiculous. That is one of the things that we need to address. However, I do not accept that home ownership is the only route to giving you a stake in your community. Sustainable communities and homes that are safe, warm and dry, a good school, decent shops, a crime-free environment and decent services are also important to community values.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York drew attention to hidden homelessness—the sofa surfers who rely on the good will and charity of friends, neighbours and relatives to put them up. This is a terrible scandal that we have not managed to tackle—that is successive Governments, so that is not the point that I am making here at all. I agree that we all need to work together to take practical steps to solve these problems, and I for one want to see a much larger role for the co-operative sector. Co-operative housing can give people and communities a real stake in their local area. In Lewisham, the Phoenix Community Housing Co-operative has transformed the Downham area. The housing was run down, and the co-op and the tenants, working together to decide what the issues were and solve the problems, have transformed the area. It is a really good example of what co-ops can do. There is an office there for the local credit union and it helps engage in the community. Ewart Road Housing Co-operative in Crofton Park is a wonderful community where people can engage in their areas.
I support the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, about how community land trusts can lock in value and make sure that the benefit is passed on to future generations. I very much support that.
I will make a few concluding remarks. Good homes available for all is a fair and just thing to do, and we should all be determined to play our part in that. Certainly for me, as a member of the Opposition, I pledge that I am happy to play my part in sorting out our problems where I can, supporting the Government and others.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, drew the attention of the Grand Committee to the recommendations in the report that referred to the Church of England, for which it poses challenges. I agree with the noble Lord that many local authorities would be very willing to work with the Church to develop and deliver sustainable developments. I agree with the noble Lord’s comments in respect of the frankly appalling practices of building developers in recent times.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, reminded us of the importance of providing facilities for older people. I am very proud to be a trustee of the United St Saviour’s Charity, which has almshouses in Southwark: there is one on Hopton Street and we are building a new one on Southwark Park Road, which the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, has agreed to visit with me, when the conditions allow. Such housing allows older people to live independent lives. Often, it can free up a much larger property that can then go to another family, and it enables people to remain valued members of their community. The partnership between United St Saviour’s Charity—which was founded in 1541—Southwark Council and the private sector is a model that we should look at and use elsewhere. Of course, the St Saviour’s parish church is now Southwark Cathedral; it was changed in 1905. The work the charity does covers the whole of Southwark and is something that we should all look at.
As I said, I want to play my part in working with the Church and the Government to get this right, but this is a wonderful, landmark report. I hope that the Government respond positively to its recommendations —not only today but beyond—and that, where they can, they support the Church and look to see what legislative changes they can bring forward. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response to the debate.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
First, I add my genuine sorrow at hearing about the sudden death of Lord Greaves. He always contributed on local government and housing matters, and he will be greatly missed. He was the very best ambassador of what is best in local government.
We have had a fascinating and informative debate this afternoon, and I am grateful for the insightful and helpful contributions made by noble Lords from all sides of the House in this Grand Committee. I begin by welcoming the report of the archbishops’ commission, which makes a vital contribution on the seminal issue of our times. The Government welcome the Church’s commitment to make better use of its landholdings to provide homes, and I know that we will continue a constructive dialogue to help it achieve its aims. We share the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury’s determination to work together, and I am happy to commit to exploring collaborative opportunities. Our housing policies must draw on expertise from all corners.
I will take this opportunity to provide some further detail on the many points that have been raised. My noble friend Lord Lilley raised the very important point that demand is outstripping supply—that was amplified by the noble Lord, Lord Birt. We need to build more homes, and he encouraged the archbishops’ commission to add a seventh S, for “sufficient” homes.
Before the onset of Covid-19, we were building at a scale and speed not seen in decades. From March 2019 to March 2020, around 244,000 homes were built—the highest number of new homes for over 30 years and the seventh consecutive year that net supply had increased. When the pandemic hit, we knew we had to act fast to support the sector, protect the gains that had been made and keep the housing market open. Working with industry, we ensured that estate agents, conveyancers and developers could continue their work and that people could still buy and sell homes. Despite all the economic shockwaves that Covid-19 has brought, the housing market has shown incredible resilience.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes raised the issue of planning applications being granted but homes still awaiting development. The Government want to see homes being built much faster and to much higher standards. We expect housebuilders to do their bit by submitting proposals for high-quality developments, in line with local needs and preferences, and building them as quickly as possible once permission is granted. However, there are many reasons why sites with planning permission are not progressing quickly. Plans evolve and developers may seek replacement permission to reflect local circumstances better, or may face viability challenges because of changes to the market.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, mentioned the opportunity presented by Covid-19 to use empty office space for residential land use. Offices are able to change their use to residential under existing permitted development rights. We recently consulted on the introduction of new permitted development rights to enable this change of use from the commercial business and service use class to residential. This would enable more types of buildings, such as shops and restaurants, to provide more housing. We are analysing the responses to the consultation and more information will be provided in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, demanded to know when I will meet the archbishop’ housing commission. I assure her that my private office will set up a meeting as soon as is practicable to follow up on this debate. I would point out that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already met the commission and a number of its members, having been invited by the most reverend Primate to Lambeth Palace.
In response to the noble Baroness’s other points, the consultation on the Planning for the Future White Paper closed on 29 October. We are analysing the responses and will, in due course, publish a response setting out our decisions on the proposed way forward.
Many noble Lords stressed the importance of building affordable and secure social homes. We welcome the commission’s report on this issue and the important contribution of the Church to our shared commitment to help our country build back better. As a Government, we are proud to be investing more than £12 billion in affordable housing over five years—the largest investment in affordable housing in a decade. This includes the new £11.5 billion affordable homes programme, which will provide up to 180,000 new homes across the country, should economic conditions allow. Approximately half of the homes delivered will be for affordable home ownership, supporting aspiring homeowners to take their first step on to the housing ladder. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, let me say that we will also deliver more than double the homes for social rent compared to the current programme, with around 32,000 social rent homes due to be delivered.
Furthermore, our £9 billion shared ownership and affordable homes programme, which has been running since 2016, will deliver approximately 250,000 new affordable homes by 2023. Recognising the value of home ownership, we have made shared ownership even more accessible by reducing the minimum share to 10%, introducing 1% staircasing and creating a new 10-year period during which the landlord will support the cost of repairs. These reforms will make the scheme more consumer-friendly, easier to access and fair. We are committed to delivering affordable homes of all types and tenures, so that we can support a range of people in different circumstances and at different stages in their lives.
Finally, we can no longer be distracted by debates over who should build because, as a Government, we are unapologetic in saying that we want to make it easier for councils themselves to deliver more housing. We have abolished the housing revenue account borrowing cap and introduced a lower interest rate for new loans issued by the Public Works Loan Board. We have also extended the deadline for councils to spend right-to-buy receipts, enabling them to catch up with their spending plans and deliver replacement social housing. We are confident that this investment will support our determination not just to build more homes but to build more homes of the right type and in the right places, helping a range of people in different circumstances and at different stages in their lives.
The most reverend Primates the Archbishop of York and the Archbishop of Canterbury, the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, all raised the issue of the definition of affordable homes. The Government do not prescribe a definition of affordability. We believe it is a complex and ever-changing picture and that is better understood and monitored at a local level. We recognise that the fundamental purpose of social housing is to provide affordable, safe and secure homes to those who cannot afford to rent or buy through the open market. The purpose is reflected in the definition of affordable housing in the National Planning Policy Framework and in our approach to setting maximum rent levels in social housing.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and others raised the problems of remediating historic building safety problems, including the removal of unsafe cladding. As Building Safety Minister, I point out that the Government remain steadfast in our commitment to this issue. We have committed £1.6 billion to accelerate the removal and replacement of unsafe cladding on the highest-risk residential buildings more than six stories or 18 metres in height. This drove forward the remediation of buildings with the most dangerous aluminium composite material cladding. Around 95% of those buildings are now remediated or the work is under way. More than 600 buildings have been registered with the new building safety fund to remove other types of unsafe cladding and are proceeding with a full application to that fund. Last month, the Government announced that we are providing an additional £3.5 billion to remediate unsafe cladding on residential buildings more than six storeys or 18 metres in height. That brings the total government investment in building safety to an unprecedented £5.1 billion. I note that there are many remaining challenges faced by leaseholders. In response to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, I am happy to do my best to ensure that we get the Treasury to the table to meet some of the cladding groups and members of the End Our Cladding Scandal campaign. It is important that the Treasury hears their voices.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, on the review of the occupancy charge, the removal of the spare room subsidy has been an important tool to help to manage housing support expenditure and enable mobility within the social rented sector. There are circumstances which allow for additional support for vulnerable claimants, such as where a member of the household is unable to share due to disabilities or requires regular overnight care from a non-resident carer. Those who require additional support with housing costs have access to discretionary housing payments from local authorities. Since 2012, we have provided £1 billion in discretionary housing payments to local authorities to support households with their housing costs.
A number of noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle raised the issue of standards in the private rented sector, particularly in the north-east and in the London Borough of Newham. The majority of private rented sector landlords provide decent, well-maintained homes, and the proportion of non-decent homes in the private rented sector has fallen from 41% in 2009 to 23% in 2019. That does not obviate the fact that there is more to be done, and we are keen to support landlords who do the right thing and to bear down on those who do not. We recognise that there are a number of unscrupulous landlords who neglect their properties and exploit their tenants. We want these landlords either to improve the service they offer or leave the business.
That is why we have strengthened local authorities’ enforcement powers, introducing financial penalties of up to £30,000, extending repayment orders and introducing banning orders for the most serious and prolific offenders. Local authorities have a legal duty to take enforcement action if they find seriously hazardous conditions. That is why we are overhauling and simplifying the HHSRS, the tool used to assess hazardous conditions in rented homes.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on scrapping the Vagrancy Act 1824, I am only a humble Minister but I reckon it should be consigned to the dustbin of history. However, the Government recognise that it is not easy to do that without a review; we are in the course of carrying out that review, which has required extensive stakeholder engagement with the police, local authorities, the homelessness sector and those with lived experience. We will make an announcement on our formal position in due course.
The strength of our communities is inextricably linked to the quality and sustainability of the homes, places and neighbourhoods in which we live and work. The Archbishops’ Commission Coming Home report and today’s debate have stressed the importance of high-quality, sustainable housing. This is just what our planning reforms aim to deliver: greener, cleaner homes and neighbourhoods that we can be proud to live in and a lasting legacy to future generations.
The reforms that we have set in train mandate for more parks, more playing fields and greener spaces in new developments. They ensure that all new streets will be tree-lined, contributing not just to a neighbourhood’s aesthetic but its air quality. We are committed to improving the energy performance of all properties, not only because it will help us achieve our ambitions to reduce emissions as well as reducing fuel poverty but because warm homes are healthier homes.
I support the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York’s clarion call for beauty; we are currently consulting on proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework and the national model design code. Our proposed changes to the NPPF, include the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission’s recommendation for a greater emphasis on beauty and place-making in the planning system, reinforcing that good-quality design should be approved while poor-quality design will be rejected. The draft model design code promotes high-quality design for new build and local residents have a real say in the design of new homes and neighbourhoods.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on mandating space standards in all developments, not just permitted development, as I have already stated, the nationally described space standard is an optional technical standard in our National Planning Policy Framework. Local authorities can choose to adopt it locally if they can demonstrate need and there are no negative impacts on viability. We announced last year that all new homes in England delivered through any permitted development rights should maintain that space standard as a minimum.
Noble Lords raised the importance of using public land in a way that achieves both social and economic goals and social value, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, put it. Last year, the Prime Minister announced a review of all public sector land to inform a new, ambitious cross-government strategy to look at how public sector land can be managed and released so that it can be put to better use. This includes homebuilding, improving the environment, contributing to net-zero goals and providing more opportunities for growth in all parts of the country.
The Government continue to take steps to ensure that public land can be used and released to provide much-needed housing. Last September, the Government announced an additional £30 million to help release surplus land for housing and to support local authorities to bounce back from the pandemic. The funding includes £10 million for the One Public Estate programme, a partnership between MHCLG, the Cabinet Office and the Local Government Association that brings public bodies together to create better places by using public assets more efficiently. Since its establishment in 2013, the programme has helped create over 23,000 new jobs and released land for over 14,000 new homes.
The funding also includes £20 million for the land release fund, which is available to councils for remediation works and infrastructure to bring their surplus sites forward for housing. The land release fund targets small sites, with a focus on supporting SME builders, ensuring that the necessary remediation work can take place to help get spades in the ground where only the Government can step in.
In addition, we are consulting on plans for a right to regenerate, strengthening the power of the public to challenge councils and other public organisations to release land for redevelopment. We believe that people and communities know what is best for their local area, and that strengthening this right will help to promote greater regeneration of brownfield land, boost housing supply and empower people to turn blighted and empty spaces into more beautiful developments. Under proposals out for consultation, people who request the sale of underused land could have a right of first refusal, giving people who make the effort an extra incentive to convert vacant plots of land and derelict buildings into new homes.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned Citizens UK’s ideas to unlock housing opportunities. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State spoke at the Citizens UK event yesterday and I know that he will look at its proposals for land release with great interest. As a Government, we are always keen to explore areas where we can unlock opportunities for new housing that others cannot.
This has been a fascinating debate that has raised the issue of balancing the drive for volume and need to create more homes with providing high-quality, decent and affordable housing for all. We welcome the commission’s report and the important contribution it makes to the need for affordable housing. The Government shares the most reverend Primates’ passion for working together and collaborating with experts from all corners. After all, the responsibility for good and safe homes is shared. We will continue to work closely with the Church of England to explore how we can support it in our shared commitment to build back better. Together, we will build not just more homes but cleaner, greener, safer neighbourhoods, in which everyone has an opportunity to thrive and flourish.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, it is a huge challenge to draw together so many extraordinarily high-quality contributions. I ask noble Lords to forgive me for failing to mention everything and everyone. Although technically I have an hour and 18 minutes, I have a funny feeling that noble Lords would appreciate it if I did not use more than a small fraction of that.
When I first joined your Lordships’ House as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, in 2011, my stepfather, a Labour Back-Bencher in the House of Lords, said, “Just remember, every time you speak, there will be a world expert listening to you.” That was just to encourage me, I think. This debate has demonstrated that. The quality of the contributions and insights has been remarkable, so I will try to pick up a few.
There has been considerable support, from almost everyone who has spoken—the Minister did not say it, but I interpret it as implicit—for the idea that all parties should be committed to good homes, affordable for all. The five “S”s are genuinely catching people’s imagination, together with the sixth “S” of sacrifice, which is indispensable to making value, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said.
Other key things that came through particularly were around affordability. At this point, I pick up a slight sense of disappointment with the Minister’s answer —I trust he will forgive me—in his reluctance to commit to working out a definition of affordability. I said in my opening speech that I was looking forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Best, and we were certainly not disappointed by his remarkable speech. It was a powerful contribution. He and every noble Lord said that the issue is affordability. This also comes back to the thought-provoking and insightful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, who made some powerful points. Have I run out of time already?
The Archbishop of Canterbury
Of course, the whole way through, the report implies—and, from time to time, says—that we need much greater supply, but the issue is not simply supply; it is supply of affordable houses. If Rolls-Royce built a million more Rolls-Royces a year but kept the price the same, it would not make cars easier for people to get hold of—
The Archbishop of Canterbury
Possibly; it depends what they did with them. The problem with land is that it is banked. It is not put on the market. There is a real shortage of land; that came out in a number of speeches. This comes from planning issues, which the Minister has said that the Government are addressing. We look forward to that.
However, it also comes from a lack of restrictions as to what sort of homes are built. In the absence of a clear definition of “affordability”, we will have a continued problem with the inadequacy of affordable homes. All things being equal, higher supply should ameliorate house price growth, but all things are not equal: the land and housing markets are not efficient, and inefficient markets produce oddities in pricing mechanisms. It is not a free and efficient market. The noble Lord can shake his head, but it genuinely is not—you only have to look at how it operates.
Successive Governments have set successively higher housebuilding targets, yet the ratio of house prices to incomes continues to move ever higher, which illustrates the inefficiency of the market. As a direct consequence, while 3 million homes have been built in the last 20 years, there has been an increase of 2.5 million in the number of homes owned by landlords and let privately. It is in this sector that tenants struggle most profoundly with affordability. Do we want to see another 2.5 million privately rented tenancies in 20 years’ time? If not, should we not, as the commission recommends, focus as much as possible on the affordability of what is built and not just on the increase in stock?
With my background in the oil industry, I know that oil is a very efficient market—as, for that matter, is foreign exchange, which I also dealt with a great deal. An increase or fall in supply is the generator of a change in price. However, when you see a market where an increase in supply is not causing a fall in price, you have to ask questions.
Of course, there is a level of new build that would completely solve the affordability problem by materially reducing current prices. However, the commission did not believe that this was a very likely or politically possible strategy for any Government. It was in that context that the commission thought it disingenuous to imply that housebuilding alone would address affordability. That is the background. I hope that it answers some of the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, quite rightly put; they were some of the most insightful in the debate.
Therefore, the idea that we can leave affordability in the hands of the very local—I do believe in localism—without saying that it must be based on incomes and not simply on a discount to local prices, seems to me to be one that will not deal with the issue of affordability. We have to find a commonly agreed definition, which can then be applied locally.
I welcome the numerous warm comments about the five values and the general aim of good homes affordable for all. This gives the grounds for possible cross-party work. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked how we get people together. I suspect we invite them to my little house just across the river and give them a good meal. In my experience, this tends to be helpful and to produce good outcomes.
I found the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, profoundly moving and very beautiful. He addressed many of the points made by other noble Lords so therefore I will not pick those up again.
As I come to the end of my remarks, having missed out a lot of things that probably should have been said, I have just one point. The Secretary of State came to Lambeth to meet some members of the commission, including myself, in October last year, so it was not a very recent meeting, and the report was not finished. Both the Secretary of State and the Housing Minister have said in the last month that they were a bit too busy to discuss anything with the commission, although we did approach them. Perhaps they will find more time in their diaries as time goes by.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, was extremely powerful on planning and other issues of accessibility and affordability, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, pointing particularly to the planning issue.
I am delighted with the comment that there will be more stringent rules about the nature of beautiful housing—I warmly welcome that. The old saying is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but that will be transformed so that beauty will be in the rules of Whitehall. This can only improve the general outlook for housebuilding in this country under numerous Governments in the future.
There are a couple of questions for consideration by the Minister over time. Equality of opportunity came out in the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and we also have to think very hard about disability. There is a real weakness in our building of accessible housing.
I welcome very strongly the Minister’s commitment to try to get the Treasury to meet people who are dealing with the issue of cladding. If you happen to live in a building that is below 18 metres, it is a very major issue indeed. A lot of people are totally caught by the fact that there is not an extra storey on their building, which would have got them the help that, by mere happenstance, they do not get.
To answer the noble Lord, Lord Birt, about selling glebe at maximum value, our problem is that the legal advice we have from some, though not all, lawyers—and this comes back to the numerous comments on the need to review charity law—is that the management of glebe must maximise the financial value of that land. This will often mean selling stuff that we really do not want to sell in our heart of hearts. There have been numerous instances in the papers recently.
I will certainly commit to supporting the abolition of the Vagrancy Act. I agree with the Minister when he says that it should be consigned to history—or to the bin, I think.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
Consigned to the dustbin—if he is allowed to do so.
To conclude, I thank noble Lords for their remarkable speeches today, their insight and the challenge to the Church, which we will seek to rise to. I particularly thank those who have mentioned Archbishop Temple, one of my great heroes, and the Faith in the City report. It says something that a report written by the Church of England 36 years ago should still come to mind. That is remarkable.
Now there really is a bell ringing, and I must pay attention to it. It has come at just the right time—noble Lords are saved by the bell. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, that completes the business before the Grand Committee today. I remind Members to please sanitise their seats and their desks.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Death of a Member: Lord Greaves
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I deeply regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on 23 March. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Food Waste
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Palmer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reduce food waste.
Lord Palmer (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and in so doing declare an interest: I have been involved in the food industry all of my walking life.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
My Lords, reducing food waste helps mitigate climate change, protect biodiversity, improve other environmental outcomes and use our resources more efficiently. This Government are committed to meeting the UN’s sustainable development goal 12.3 target to halve global food waste by 2030. Actions that we have taken include appointing a food waste champion, supporting householders to waste less with campaigns such as the Food Waste Action Week, grant-funding the redistribution sector and working with industry on sustainable supply chains.
Lord Palmer (CB)
I thank the noble Lord for that response. I am sure one of the main problems is that the sell-by dates on products are far too cautious. I remember once eating a biscuit that was 20 years old. It was perfectly edible.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with that point. I do not think that I have eaten a biscuit quite that old, but I would not be afraid of doing so. The UK is objectively an international leader in tackling food waste. We are fully committed to the UN sustainable development goal target, which, as I said, is to halve global food waste at consumer and retail levels by 2030. We will use all available tools and I take the noble Lord’s comments on board.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab) [V]
I am pleased to hear the Minister endorse the efforts being made globally and internationally by the Government, but can I take him back to World War II, when there was a huge effort to take the campaign into every household? It was done by advertising, by broadcasting and by recruiting restaurants, cafés and commentators to reach individuals. Please can the Government address their policy in that direction?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, that is very much the direction in which we are focusing our efforts. For example, Food Waste Action Week in March is the first of what we hope will be an annual event focused on citizen food waste and is all about increasing awareness. We are also urging businesses to help consumers directly. The way food products are sold, packaged, labelled, priced et cetera can make a big difference to waste levels at home. We are funding both of WRAP’s campaigns: Love Food Hate Waste and Wasting Food: It’s Out of Date. These schemes are about helping and motivating people to cut waste. There is masses of evidence to suggest that that is working.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, with queues at food banks and children suffering from food poverty, food waste is an outrage. In some cases, supermarkets are refusing to take produce grown under contract, resulting in it being ploughed back into the ground. These crops could be used to make meals to help feed the homeless. What is the Minister doing to ensure that no nutritious food is destroyed in this way?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, there are so many benefits to cutting food waste and the noble Baroness has mentioned just one. The total amount of surplus food redistributed in the UK in 2018 alone—as a consequence, partly, of UK Government efforts—was 56,000 tonnes. That is worth £166 million and is food that would have been thrown away but was not. UK food redistribution almost doubled between 2015 and 2018 for charitable and commercial sectors. Surplus food redistributed via charities made up almost 60% of that total, up from 40% in 2015. We are investing in numerous organisations that are on the front line of ensuring that food, instead of being wasted, is redistributed to those people who need it most.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con) [V]
My Lords, the reduction in food wasted by households during the pandemic, seemingly as a result of careful shopping, budgeting and home cooking, is to be warmly welcomed. Can my noble friend say what action is to be taken to ensure that similar reductions happen in the hospitality sector as it begins to open up?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The noble Baroness makes an important point. We are supporting WRAP, which is our delivery partner, to help the hospitality sector to waste less food. WRAP has developed a new programme, called Guardians of Grub, to help the sector put food waste reduction, with all the associated cost savings, at the heart of its operations. As I mentioned, we are also supporting the redistribution sector to get more surplus food to those in need. In 2018, the hospitality industry provided more than 1,000 tonnes of surplus food—around 2% of its total—and since then we have invested significantly in redistribution, so we expect those positive trends to continue.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, given that the global food system accounts for as much as 30% of greenhouse gas emissions, does the Minister agree that food, farming, dietary change and tackling food waste should form part of the Government’s commitments for COP 26? Does he also consider that it would be appropriate for England to join Scotland in signing the Glasgow food and climate declaration?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is remarkable that over the last 40 years food production has trebled, but that has come at a huge cost, in soil erosion, in the unsustainable use and pollution of water and in deforestation. Agriculture is responsible for about 80% of the world’s deforestation and deforestation is now the second biggest source of emissions. Meanwhile, efforts to produce cheaper meat have led to industrial-scale use of antibiotics, which in turn exacerbates issues around antimicrobial resistance. This absolutely is a central issue and much of the work that we are doing in the run-up to COP 26 in November is centred around the need to shift and change fundamentally the way in which we use land.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]
Food waste disposed of in plastic packaging either goes to landfill or contaminates organic waste streams. Does the Minister agree that this could be partially solved by incentivising food producers and retailers to use compostable packaging, by which I mean the type that degrades naturally, rather than as a result of chemical processes? What action are the Government taking to support that?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The Government have a keen interest in the issue of biodegradable and compostable packaging. The sad truth is that much of the packaging that is advertised as such really is not. We are looking at that in great detail, with a view potentially to creating a standard to avoid any confusion. I hope that we will resolve those issues soon and will be able to establish a clear policy that is both understandable and effective.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
Does the Minister agree that supermarket promotions such as “three for two” and “buy one, get one free” promote overprovisioning and result in waste? What action is being taken to make supermarkets address the causes of food waste?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
Much of the focus of the work that the Government are doing is on trying to get the food sector, at all levels, to reduce the amount of food waste generated. Clearly, that involves supermarkets packaging, advertising and presenting their products in a way that helps consumers to make the right choices, with a view to reducing their environmental footprint and food waste.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, is the Minister aware that under the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, which deals with the sustainable management of natural resources, the Welsh Government might be empowered to introduce a food waste charge on all food that is not sold or disposed of for human or animal consumption by its end date? Will he encourage the Welsh Government to act in that regard and will he consider whether such steps might be equally applicable in England?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
On food waste, with our counterparts in the DAs, we learn from each other. Much of our work with WRAP, including citizen campaigns, is supported by Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In the resources and waste strategy, we have committed to seek powers in our Environment Bill to impose responsibilities on producers to reduce their waste, should progress from all the current measures be insufficient to get us towards that sustainable development goal. We continue to look closely at the issue.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that apps and charities are more effective in the redistribution of surplus food than any government policy, however well intentioned, can be? May I take him a little bit upstream and talk about the production phase? For years, British agriculture was locked into a system where there was necessary overproduction and where intensive farming, the use of chemical fertilisers and the felling of hedgerows were encouraged by an output-based system. Will my noble friend confirm that we will now have a farming policy in this country tailored to suit the needs of the countryside, which is the sublime inheritance of all of us in these islands?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I agree with the noble Lord about the value, the benefit and the effectiveness of the private sector in dealing with these issues, particularly through new technology and apps. I can also absolutely confirm that one of the biggest opportunities that we have in relation to farming, land use, conservation and the environment is the ability now, post Brexit, to ditch the old common agricultural policy and replace it with a new system that, instead of incentivising land use destruction, which CAP undoubtedly did throughout the continent, is moving to make all payments conditional on delivery of a public good. Of course, one public good, among many, is environmental stewardship.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
University of Bristol: Jewish Students
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Austin of Dudley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the statements by Professor David Miller about Jewish students; and what discussions they have had with (1) the University of Bristol, and (2) the police, about the steps being taken to ensure the safety of such students.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Universities are independent and autonomous organisations. Accordingly, the Government have not intervened directly in this case, but we consider that the University of Bristol could do more to make its condemnation of Professor Miller’s conduct clear to current and future students. Students also can and should inform the police if they believe that the law has been broken. Professor Miller has expressed some ill-founded and reprehensible views and the Government wholeheartedly reject them.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
Academics do have freedom of speech, including to criticise Israel, but Professor Miller does not have the right to attack Jewish students as being part of an Israel lobby group that makes Arab and Muslim students unsafe. Bristol should not be employing someone to teach students wild conspiracy theories about Jewish people. His behaviour has resulted in Jewish students being subjected to weeks of harassment and abuse. Bristol must support its students and take this much more seriously.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord gets to the nub of the issue with his questions. Academics of course have the right to espouse views that many might find offensive, perhaps even idiotic, and universities should be places where such views can be rigorously and vigorously debated. What makes this case concerning is Professor Miller’s comments about his own students, suggesting that their disagreement with his views is because they are political pawns of a foreign Government or part of a Zionist enemy, which has no place in any society. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism draws the important distinction between legitimate criticism of the Government of Israel and their policies and holding Jews collectively responsible for them. We are glad that the University of Bristol has adopted that definition and we hope that it will consider it carefully.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register, including the fact that I am on the advisory council of the Hillel foundation, which supports Jewish students at universities. Does the Minister agree that the failure of the university’s leadership to act to protect its own students, for whom it has a duty of care, breaches three out of the four regulatory objectives of the Office for Students? Can he provide reassurance that that will be taken into consideration in any evaluation by the Office for Students, which would also include addressing and evaluating the performance of the university leadership and confidence in its ability to continue to lead?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right to say that providers have a duty of care to students, which the Government expect them to take very seriously. All registered higher education providers, including the University of Bristol, are subject to ongoing conditions of registration with the Office for Students, which is responsible for ensuring compliance with them. In addition, students can notify the Office for Students of any issues that they think may be of regulatory interest to it, and the OfS has provided a guide for students to support them in that process.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con) [V]
In a Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Austin last week, my noble friend the Minister said:
“All higher education providers should discharge their responsibilities fully and have robust policies and procedures in place to comply with the law”.
So will he or the Universities Minister now write to universities who employ the academics who signed a letter of support for Professor Miller of Bristol University, asking them what action they are taking in respect of those academics, who appear to be supporting Professor Miller’s anti-Semitism, as defined by the aforementioned IHRA?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Universities and other providers are independent institutions, responsible for their own staffing decisions and for meeting their duties under the law, regarding both freedom of expression and equality. However, the Government have been clear that we expect universities to be at the forefront of tackling anti-Semitism and ensuring that they provide a welcoming experience for all students. That is why my right honourable friend the Education Secretary wrote to providers, encouraging them to adopt the IHRA definition, as a result of which, I am pleased to say, more than 50 additional institutions have done so.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, on that point of a welcoming environment for Jewish students, the University of Bristol, in a statement on its investigation, said that its,
“clear and consistently held position is that bullying, harassment, and discrimination are never acceptable. We remain committed to providing a positive experience for all our students and staff, including by providing a welcoming environment for Jewish students”.
That is not happening at that university and, sadly, at all too many other universities. In a debate in January initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who follows me today, she said that some universities were becoming no-go areas for Jewish students. This is surely intolerable. There is a systemic problem here and I should like to hear the Minister say how he is going to tackle that on a—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
That is an extremely long question. Could I please ask noble Lords to keep their questions short, as a lot of people want to get in and express their views?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness refers to the important, if dispiriting, debate held in Grand Committee in January this year, looking at instances of anti-Semitism in universities. The Government are very mindful of that, which is why my right honourable friend the Education Secretary has, in his most recent strategic guidance letter, asked the Office for Students to consider a scoping exercise to identify providers that are reluctant to adopt the IHRA definition.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
Sadly, the situation at Bristol has been ongoing for over two years since students first complained and the university has stonewalled until this week. Jewish students have been verbally and physically abused at that university previously. The failure to act shows that anti-Semitism is not taken seriously. Had a professor hurled similar abuse and conspiracy theories at black students, he would have been off campus by the evening. Will the Minister ensure that the relevant student bodies take anti-Semitism as seriously as they do other forms of racism—namely the OfS, the National Union of Students and Universities UK?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the Government most certainly take anti-Semitism seriously and my right honourable friend the Education Secretary’s letter also asked the Office for Students to consider introducing mandatory reporting by providers of anti-Semitic incident numbers, with the aim of ensuring a robust evidence base to make sure that appropriate action is being taken.
Lord Pickles (Con) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. Does my noble friend agree that Bristol University adopting the IHRA working definition on anti-Semitism is only the first step? A work programme would reasonably seek to establish a safe space for Jewish students so that they can learn in a free and open environment. Bristol University has failed to offer safety, reassurance or even the slightest suggestion of competence. Does my noble friend agree that the university must condemn Professor Miller’s statement that Jewish students were directed by the Israeli Government and take the necessary action to restore the public’s lost confidence in Bristol University?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I first pay tribute to my noble friend’s work on the IHRA definition and getting a number of bodies, including Her Majesty’s Government, to sign up to it. He is right that adoption of that working definition is only a first step. While the Government think it is vital, it is not enough on its own. That is why we continue to work with the sector to make sure that it is doing everything it can to stamp out anti-Semitism.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I draw attention to my registered interests and very much welcome the Minister’s comments. Has he noted that Professor Miller has suggested that by joining a university Jewish society, students are thereby associating themselves with racism and Islamophobia? Will the Minister note that many students join Jewish societies because they wish to attend religious services or go to parties? They may simply wish to have a nourishing and regular bowl of chicken soup.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I completely agree with the noble Lord. That suggestion is at the heart of this issue because it implies that Professor Miller can understand the motivations or the political views of Jewish students at the University of Bristol who join a Jewish society. We think that is wrong and very ill-founded, and that is what causes us such concern in this case.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is an appalling case, but does the Minister share my concern that the Government’s proposals for free speech legislation run the risk of protecting statements that are anti-Semitic, offensive and dangerous? Will he clarify the role that the Government expect the free-speech champion to play in cases such as this? What protection and priority will be given to student welfare under the proposals to ensure that Jewish students do feel safe from anti-Semitic abuse?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, people go to university to be provoked and challenged and to come into contact with ideas and opinions that may be different from those that they have encountered before. They might find those ideas fatuous or even offensive, but that is part and parcel of the academic experience. Our proposals for a free-speech champion are to ensure that free speech is being protected on campus, that that essential part of university experience is maintained and that universities are balancing their legal obligations to safeguard freedom of expression while also tackling any abuse, harassment or intimidation of students, which is contrary to the law.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I regret that the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question, from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is unacceptable and unjustifiable that Iran has chosen to continue with this second and wholly arbitrary case against Nazanin. Iran has put her through an inhumane ordeal. We continue to call on Iran in the strongest possible terms to allow her to return to the UK to be reunited with her family. The Prime Minister has raised her situation with President Rouhani, most recently on 10 March, and the Foreign Secretary continues to engage with Foreign Minister Zarif.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
Why did representatives from the embassy not visit Nazanin while she was staying with her parents in Tehran, even to the point of sending a car without a member of staff from the embassy to deliver a gift from her daughter in London? Also, is it not time that we resolved the question of the £400 million debt to Iran, which is not in dispute? Is it not time that we paid it off, at least to clear the air in that respect?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have made many efforts to attend court hearings to witness at first hand the discussions that have taken place which have had a direct impact on this appalling case, but it is not for the UK to force itself into such proceedings. Unfortunately, that cannot happen without the permission of the authorities. However, we will continue to make the case.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests. Does the Minister agree that even if Iran has a justified sense of grievance over the unpaid tank money, the £400 million referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, it is beyond the pale for a civilised country to try to make a link between the fate of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and a financial argument? Does he remember that when President Rouhani took office, he said in his first speech that he wanted to demonstrate to the world the rational face of Iran and the compassionate face of Islam? Is it not now time, at Nowruz, the beginning of Iranian new year, for those qualities to be made a reality?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My noble friend makes an extremely powerful point. Compassion is certainly not a word that can be used to describe the manner in which this British subject has been treated. The UK does not and never will, under any circumstances, accept its dual nationals being used as diplomatic leverage. The payment of the IMS debt is a long-standing case relating to historical debt owed to pre-revolution Iran, as the noble Lord will know. We continue to explore the options to resolve this case. I cannot go into detail here, but would say simply that the two issues cannot be merged into one.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I must press the Minister on the final point made so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. It seems to many people in this country that we should simply pay this debt and get it out of the way, given that senior members of the Government have admitted that we owe it. Also, have the Government made an assessment of other British citizens who might, either now or in the future, be in danger of being held as, quite frankly, hostages?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is unhelpful to connect wider bilateral issues with those being arbitrarily detained in Iran. It remains in Iran’s gift to do the right thing and allow British dual nationals to come home and be reunited with their families. We have been consistently clear that we continue to explore all the options to resolve what is a 40 year-old case. The Government are clear that we do not accept British dual nationals being used as diplomatic leverage and we continue to call on the Iranian Government to release all the British dual nationals who have been arbitrarily detained.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, obviously there is huge public interest in Nazanin’s case, from the time when more than 3.5 million people signed a petition to free her. I would also mention the case of Anousheh Ashouri. Will the Government provide diplomatic protection for him in the way that they extended it to Nazanin last year, as well as providing them both with ongoing consular protection?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will have to take the case mentioned by the noble Baroness back to the FCDO and I will convey her message to colleagues in the ministerial team and officials.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I would also like to flag the case not only of Nazanin, and ask why the Government have not fully used the diplomatic protection they have granted to her. It should be extended to another British dual national, Anousheh Ashouri, a retired British-Iranian engineer. He has been held for three and a half years after a grossly unfair trial. When the Minister writes to the other noble Baroness, could he write to me as well with regard to what is happening in this case?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I can certainly provide that assurance. However, perhaps I may make a broader point about diplomatic protection. Exercising diplomatic protection in the case of Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe and others formally raises the issues to a state-to-state matter, and we will take further action where we judge that it will help to secure her full and permanent release. However, it is important that we act in a way that we judge, with all the information we have, most likely to be in the best interests of each of our detainees. We cannot, as noble Lords will understand, provide a running commentary on consular actions in this, or any, specific case.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, in light of the revelations about torture in Nazanin’s case, can the Government update us on how they have revised their protocols to protect from torture the other British citizens being held by Iran? Can he tell us what has changed?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
We have said on many occasions that Iran continues to put Nazanin through a cruel and intolerable ordeal; there is no question about that. She must be allowed to return permanently to her family in the UK and we will continue to do all we can to achieve that. We shall apply as much pressure as we can in her case and in the case of other dual nationals being held arbitrarily by the Iranian regime.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, we all feel the most immense sympathy about the appalling case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, but it is entirely the fault of the Iranian Government. Almost 12 years ago, I visited Iran just before the Iranian Green Movement was crushed and I remember a Minister looking us in the eye and telling us that black was white—in other words, lying to us. They are not a Government who should be dealt with like a normal democratic Government. Does my noble friend share my bemusement that people seem to think that this is in some way the fault of the British Government? Rather, we should understand that our citizens must not be held hostage and used as leverage against us.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My noble friend makes a powerful point and, yes, I agree entirely that it remains completely in the gift of Iran to do the right thing by allowing all British dual nationals home to be reunited with their families. As I said in answer to a previous question, we do not believe that it is helpful or right to conflate different issues or to enable Iran to justify holding our citizens as collateral in the pursuit of other ancillary aims.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, striking the balance between state concerns is key to this. Our deep concerns have been voiced vehemently over time and will have been well understood by Tehran. However, would radio silence and quiet diplomacy where required be prudent now in order not to exacerbate a tense situation at this critical juncture? We should encourage no triumphalism from any quarter in the event of a favourable outcome.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have a clear interest and goal here. Our goal is to do everything we can to ensure that Nazanin is returned to this country to be able to live safely and happily with her family. We have raised the issue over and over again at the highest levels of government. As I said, on 10 March, the Prime Minister raised the issue with President Rouhani. There has been regular and ongoing personal engagement between the Foreign Secretary and his counterpart and we have been lobbying Iranian interlocutors at every opportunity. The UK Government, from the PM down, are dedicated to supporting Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family and we are determined to see them reunited. This is not about scoring points.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
I would like to ask the Foreign Secretary what our policy is on state hostages. Will the Prime Minister raise the issue at the G7 meeting in Cornwall later this year?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I thank the noble Baroness for promoting me to Foreign Secretary. I would say that it is very likely that the Prime Minister will raise these issues, not only at the G20 meeting in Cornwall but at subsequent events. However, it is not for me to pre-empt the discussions that he will have.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Covid-19: Resuscitation Orders
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by the Care Quality Commission Protect, respect, connect—decisions about living and dying well during COVID-19, published on 18 March, on decisions about the use of ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ orders for (1) care home residents, and (2) people with learning disabilities, during the pandemic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the department warmly welcomes the publication of the CQC report on the use of DNACPR decisions taken during the Covid-19 pandemic. We are pleased to see examples of good practice detailed in the report across both health and social care, but this was not true everywhere, particularly for our most vulnerable people. That is why the department is committed to driving forward the delivery of the report’s recommendations and ultimately ensuring that everyone experiences the compassionate care that they deserve.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, this report from the Care Quality Commission highlights that
“unprecedented pressure on care providers”
and the rapidly developing guidance has led to blanket “do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” orders being imposed at a local level, particularly affecting care home residents and people with learning disabilities. Failure to consult people about their care betrays a lack of decency and compassion, but it is also a human rights violation. I am very grateful to the Minister for his reassurance about the recommendations, but may I press him, in particular, to assure the House that the recommendation of a ministerial oversight group will be implemented?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I can absolutely reassure the right reverend Prelate that the Minister with responsibility for patient safety and mental health care will be heading the ministerial oversight group to drive forward progress. The group will bring together a range of stakeholders across both health and care to ensure that the recommendations are implemented.
Baroness Hollins (CB) [V]
My Lords, given the significantly higher number of excess deaths among people with learning disabilities last year, will the Minister commit to finding out what proportion of those deaths were associated with DNACPRs? Does he agree that the use of blanket DNACPRs for people with learning disabilities is an indication of the extent of the lack of confidence and competence among healthcare staff to accommodate their needs, and adds to the urgent need to introduce the Oliver McGowan mandatory training currently being piloted? A timetable for the widespread introduction of that training would be very welcome.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that we are having questions that are far too long. Can people please keep their questions brief?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we will address the audit points made by the noble Baroness. I completely endorse the importance of training; that is at the heart of the report and we acknowledge its importance. We are concerned about the number of people with learning disabilities who have died during the pandemic, and there will be a report on what the connections are.
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we know that it is unlawful for DNACPRs to be imposed, and I wonder why the research has not sought to identify why physicians and care workers continue to impose them in the way that they have. Does the Minister agree that the solution must lie in completely clear, unambiguous policy to advance care planning and DNACPR decisions, and a consistent use of accessible language, communication and guidance to enable clear understanding by commissioners, providers and the public?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I will gently push back against the noble Baroness: the policy is absolutely crystal clear. Blanket DNACPR is not the policy of this Government, as was repeated time and time again in our communications, which I would list if I had more time. Training is the issue: we need to give the front-line workforce the skills it needs to apply these very delicate but critical interactions. That is the recommendation of the report, and that is where we are focused on applying the lessons.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with Age UK that the report is the tip of the iceberg and requires the Government to bring forward proposals as part of a complete overhaul of the advance care planning system?
Lord Bethell (Con)
No, my Lords, I do not accept that the report is simply the tip of the iceberg; it is very thorough and goes into the matter extremely carefully. However, there are important lessons on training to be learned and they will be driven by the ministerial oversight group.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, the Care Quality Commission wrote up its findings at the time of the outbreak of Covid-19, which may have made them less reliable. A number of factors have served to raise exposure to decisions on whether or not to accept DNACPRs, and these were taken for groups rather than individually. Such groups included individuals suffering with dementia and learning disabilities who needed briefings that they could understand. The Care Quality Commission report is about how hospitals, care homes and doctors should support people to make decisions properly about how to restart. Are the Government satisfied that the decisions in this territory are now being taken properly?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the report is crystal clear that we accept that more training is needed. Front-line care support workers need to be given more support in their interactions, and we will be putting that in place.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register, in particular the fact that I am a nurse involved with the Outcomes First Group, which supports people with learning disabilities. In order to increase the population’s awareness of care planning in relation to living and dying well, will the Government, in addition to training, consider incentivising healthcare workers to ensure that they have sufficient time to undertake proper assessment of individuals with cognitive impairment and learning difficulties as part of their routine care planning, which should be recorded and reviewed at least biannually?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very fair point; such care needs to be in the work plan particularly of those with learning difficulties, but of all those in care. We absolutely endorse the approach taken by the Resuscitation Council, which has extremely good guidance in this area.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, no one doubts the events described by the right reverend Prelate and noble Lords. By when can we be confident that the same could not happen again?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we could not be moving more quickly. We got the report out before the end of the pandemic; we have acknowledged the issue and written numerous letters into the system, as I have mentioned; and we are putting in place the resources needed to support the necessary training and interactions. We are taking this extremely seriously and we are moving as quickly as we possibly can.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
As the Minister has suggested, decisions on end-of-life care are best taken long before they are necessary, so could he encourage GPs to offer all patients the opportunity to make an advanced decision to refuse treatment, properly witnessed by two individuals, if it is to become effective?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is entirely right, and a growing number of people do take that kind of pragmatic approach. But we have to be realistic: many people are not prepared to put those sorts of arrangements in place until much later on in their lives, and it is often the family and relatives of those in care who have to be part of those important conversations.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, regardless of Department of Health and Social Care policy and NHS instructions to clinicians, we know that DNACPR orders were made without adequate consultation and safeguards. Can the Minister assure this House that the Government will meet with families who have raised concerns about DNACPRs as the cause of deaths? Will he emphatically agree with this House and the families themselves that senior case reviews should be undertaken, with a panel of experts, of all cases where families have raised questions? Will he state categorically again that DNACPR without consent is—
Lord Bethell (Con)
I reassure the noble Baroness that there has been a huge amount of stakeholder engagement, with Mencap, Turning Point and others. It is not the role of the CQC to do individual family reviews, but I can reassure her that we have learned important lessons from this process.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
Does the Minister agree that the ministerial oversight committee should also consider looking at end-of-life care?
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I should declare my interest as chair of Dignity in Dying. What plans do the Government have to increase dramatically the numbers of people who have advanced decisions expressing their views on medical treatment? Does the Minister agree that patients’ wishes should be central to DNACPR decisions, and indeed to all significant medical decisions, particularly at the end of life?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we absolutely agree. That is exactly how the guidelines are written and exactly the guidance sent into the system. The issue we face is much more pastoral in nature: it is one of training and creating the space and resources necessary to have extremely difficult conversations. That is the kind of front-line support we need to put in place. It is a question of patient engagement rather than a change of guidelines, but I completely take on board the noble Baroness’s recommendations.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, with the help of the Leader of the House, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Tuberculosis
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Herbert of South Downs
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the announcement by the World Health Organisation on 22 March that an estimated 1.4 million fewer people received necessary care for Tuberculosis in 2020 compared with 2019, what they are doing to tackle Tuberculosis globally.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
My Lords, the impact of Covid-19 on other global health issues such as TB is deeply troubling. The UK has a proud legacy of fighting TB globally. Our current pledge of up to £1.4 billion to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is tackling all three diseases and helping countries to strengthen their health systems. We also invest in TB research and innovation to help people access new TB treatments.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Many people believe that tuberculosis is a disease of the past. It is in fact, sadly, a disease of the present, still killing 1.5 million people a year globally quite unnecessarily. By the time this World TB Day has ended, there will have been another 4,000 needless losses of life, and 700 of those will be children. No epidemic in human history has been beaten without a vaccine, yet there is no effective adult vaccine for tuberculosis. I am grateful for the many things that the Government are doing to tackle this disease globally, but will my noble friend assure me that the Government will remain committed to funding the vital research and development for the new tools that will help us to beat this terrible disease by the time of the sustainable development goal which committed to end it in nine years’ time?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, tackling TB is a crucial part of improving lives. As the noble Lord says, every death from TB is preventable. That is why the UK has been a leading donor on TB for many years; we are consistently among the top three most generous countries. Our research investments have been transformational and have led to at least five new diagnostic tools for TB. Although the pandemic has forced us to take tough decisions, tackling TB remains a priority and global health remains a top UK ODA priority, as set out by the Foreign Secretary just a few days ago. We will provide more information on how we will continue to take a leading role in due course.
Baroness Nye (Lab) [V]
I appreciate what the Minister said about the importance of the Global Fund. He will well know that any delay in funding would set a dangerous precedent and undermine the fund’s ability to disperse those crucial funds. What reassurances can he give about the full and timely dispersal of the UK pledge to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria that keeps to the original timetable?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Global Fund is the principal mechanism that we use to fight TB in developing countries. We believe that the Global Fund has a major role to play in the fight against TB. Our current pledge absolutely reflects this.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, in the context of the deplorable reduction to the aid budget, how will the Government use their UK leadership through the G7 and G20 processes to drive international collaboration to strengthen essential health services and mitigate the secondary impact of Covid-19, including on TB?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, this is a very significant year for global Britain, with numerous opportunities for us to demonstrate leadership. The UK will use its G7 presidency to champion the needs of developing countries, including, of course, on health generally and on TB in particular.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con) [V]
Is my noble friend the Minister aware that almost a third of the global population is infected with the TB bacterium but only 5% to 10% of these will go on to develop active TB? Chief among those are people with HIV, who may have suppressed immune systems: for them, preventive therapy is absolutely crucial. That includes patients here in the UK. Can he tell us what progress is being made in reaching the target of providing preventive therapy to the 30 million people most at risk by 2022?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, tackling TB is a crucial part of improving the lives of vulnerable people, as the noble Lord has said, such as those living in poverty or with HIV, who are most at risk. While TB affects mothers and children less than diseases such as malaria do, 16% of all TB deaths in 2019 were still of children under 15. For these reasons and many more, tackling TB remains a government priority.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has stressed that health is a priority for this Government, so what assessment has been made of the impact of UK aid cuts on global efforts to build resilient and responsive health systems to deliver on the sustainable development goal target to end TB?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The pandemic has forced us to take tough decisions, including temporarily reducing the aid budget. However, global health remains one of the UK’s top ODA priorities, as set out by the Foreign Secretary. We will continue to be a global leader on global health with a major portfolio of investments focusing on where we can make the biggest possible difference. The current resource allocation round has not yet concluded, so I am not able, at this point, to confirm the settlement for global health.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, TB is a contagious and dreadful disease. I know that because my father died after suffering from TB. He contracted TB during the 1950s, however, when it was incurable in India. Nowadays, TB is curable and occurs predominantly in South Asia and Africa. I am aware that the UK aims to give aid to these countries mainly for education and skills training, but will the Government earmark part of the funds to tackle diseases such as tuberculosis?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, I can confirm that tackling TB remains a priority. As with all ODA, we are obliged to spend money in the manner that delivers the best possible results. The noble Lord mentioned his father’s death, and I am very sorry to hear that. He also mentioned that TB was treatable, although it is worth pointing out that we have serious challenges with anti-microbial resistance. Drug-resistant TB is a real challenge, so we will have to continue to address that issue as well, and draw attention to the fact that drug-resistant TB causes, we believe, a third of all deaths from anti-microbial resistance.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
My Lords, this past year has seen a huge disruption to the delivery of vaccinations and medical treatment and care, with TB being one clear example. Given the increased need for global health assistance because of Covid-19, surely we should be stepping up, not stepping back. Do the Government really think it is right to be cutting life-saving medical UK aid during a global pandemic?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, we are not stepping back; we are stepping up. In all, we have committed up to £1.3 billion of ODA to counter the health, humanitarian and socio-economic impacts of Covid-19 and to ensure an equitable distribution of vaccines. The UK is working with countries to ensure that, as far as possible, essential TB services continue; that TB patients are protected from Covid-19 infections; and that TB programmes make good decisions about redeploying their resources to national Covid-19 programmes in a sustainable way. Our funding has supported the Global Fund’s Covid-19 response mechanism, set up specifically to help countries keep on track during, and because of, the pandemic.
Lord Wharton of Yarm (Con)
My Lords, the ODA budget performs a great role in fighting TB and many other evils across the world. At the same time, the UK Government have rightly spent billions on a superbly successful Covid-19 vaccination programme at home, and I congratulate them. However, when we have completed that work here and excess vaccines are, hopefully, shared with those countries that need them across the world, including developing nations that are otherwise in receipt of ODA, can the Minister reassure us that the cost of those vaccines will not count towards, or be deducted from, our aid spending targets?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend asks a serious and important question. I am afraid that it is not one that I can answer right now, but I will convey it back to the department and my colleagues, and I am sure that the answer will soon be forthcoming.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con) [V]
My Lords, as well as the difficulties for TB care, the pandemic has led to huge challenges in the delivery of life-saving contraception. This will be compounded by the plan to cut aid so significantly. The UK’s flagship family planning programme, WISH, is at risk and reports at the weekend highlighted that if funding is removed, we could see up to 2.5 million more unintended pregnancies and 22,000 maternal deaths. Does the Minister agree that contraception is one of the most empowering things that we can do for women globally, and can he please do what he can to protect this vital programme from closure?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My noble friend makes a really important point. It has been the Government’s view for some time that investing in family planning is an extraordinarily important way to empower particularly women and girls in vulnerable communities. There is also a direct link between empowering women and girls and consequently enabling families to make decisions for themselves on their own terms in relation to the size of their families. For many reasons, investing in family planning has always been a priority, and I assure my noble friend that it will continue to be.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I was pleased to hear from the Minister what the Government are doing. There is a real urgency to tackle this disease worldwide, not least because we are acutely aware of how easily disease can spread rapidly across borders. Does my noble friend have access to any figures regarding the number of TB cases in the UK in recent years, and whether the disease is on the increase here? He may have to ask his colleagues in the Department of Health about this.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I am afraid that I cannot give accurate figures, but they do exist—I have seen them, but I do not want to mislead the House. I will get back to my noble friend after consulting with the Department of Health. The numbers are very small, certainly in comparison with any of the target countries that we focus on through our ODA.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, does not our success in creating a vaccine for Covid in very short order suggest that maybe now is the time when, if we put our shoulders thoroughly to the wheel, we can do the same for tuberculosis, and that when our aid budget is again increased, a large lump of the first year allocation to this purpose would have a great benefit for the world?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My noble friend is right. A range of approaches will be critical in tackling TB in the longer term. We must advance universal health coverage to ensure that all people with TB have access to affordable, quality care, and address risk factors for TB, such as poverty and malnutrition, but clearly a TB vaccine would be a game changer to prevent TB. Vaccine development research is high risk, but with potentially gigantic rewards. We will continue assessing the UK’s contribution to vaccine development as the pipeline of potential TB vaccine candidates develops.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
Your Lordships will be pleased to know that all the Questions have been asked.
Business of the House
The Earl of Courtown
That Standing Order 73 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with on Thursday 25 March to enable motions to approve affirmative instruments laid before the House under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to be moved whether or not the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has reported on them.
Business of the House
The Earl of Courtown
That, notwithstanding the resolutions of 4 June 2020 and 9 February 2021, the debate on the motions in the name of Lord Bethell set down for Thursday 25 March shall be time-limited to five hours.
Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 22 February be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 18 March.
Defence and Security Industrial Strategy
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the publication of this strategy is welcome, especially since companies across all sectors have had an extremely tough year. The Government have noted that businesses have cut back on research and development, training and other investments in future capacity and productivity, due to Covid-19. However, the impact of the pandemic on the defence and security sectors is not explored in detail in the strategy. How many jobs have been lost? How many people remain on furlough? How much government support has been awarded to these sectors?
Labour welcomes the publication of this strategy. Indeed, the very use of “strategy” is a victory in itself. We welcome the confirmation that global competition by default, begun by the White Paper in 2012, has gone. It is high time that we put an end to a British Government being just as happy buying abroad as building in Britain. We also welcome the change in naval procurement policy and the commitment to invest £6.6 billion in defence research and development over the next four years. We welcome the Prime Minister’s extra £16.5 billion in capital funding after the last decade of decline, but 30,000 jobs in the defence industry have gone since 2010, and nearly £420 million in real terms has been cut from defence R&D. In many UK regions, the money promised today will still be well short of what has been taken away over the last decade.
The strategy
“aims to establish a more productive and strategic relationship between government and the defence and security industries.”
This is welcome, since the weapons of the future are just as likely to be developed in the private sector as in an MoD lab. We now need to ensure that this is the start of a new era, with the aim not only of making and maintaining in Britain but of developing the technologies and companies that we will need in 10 years’ time to procure in Britain. Innovation and growth are driven by our precious SMEs, and this is certainly true in these sectors. The defence supply chain is made up of highly specialised SMEs and the strategy even states that SMEs make up 95% of the security sector. We must ensure that these businesses are supported as well as protected.
It is welcome to see that the SME spend is going in the right direction, but it is not fast enough. The current MoD SME action plan states that the Ministry of Defence has a target of 25% of its procurement spend going to SMEs by 2022, but that target is not mentioned in the new strategy. Can the Minister confirm whether the target has been dropped?
The strategy says the Government will be publishing a fresh SME action plan to set out how the department will maximise opportunities for SMEs to do business with the MoD. The current SME action plan is due to last until the end of next year. Will the refurbished plan start after that?
The strategy also alludes to other new strategies, so it would be helpful for the Minister to give more details about when the new defence, science and technology collaboration and engagement strategy and the AI strategy will be published. How will the AI strategy seek to catch up with the long-standing AI investments in China and the US?
The National Security and Investment Bill is also currently progressing through this House, and it is interesting to see more detail about how it relates to the MoD, which was probed in Committee. The strategy reveals that a separate MoD directorate will be established, focused on broader economic security and supporting the implementation of the National Security and Investment Bill. How will that new directorate work with the investment and security unit in BEIS? Will the new directorate help businesses with the processes of mandatory and voluntary notifications?
Today the Government are asking industry to do more with more. Ministers have to get this right. The next step is to focus clearly on delivery. The document contains a wealth of detail, most of which is about the new initiative and changes in direction. Will the Minister commit to reporting to the House on progress in 12 months’ time?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, another day, another defence Statement repeat, and an opportunity for us to probe the Government’s thinking about wider issues of the integrated review in terms of security, defence and, on this occasion, the defence industrial base.
Like the Labour Front Bench, we broadly welcome this paper. However, I would be a bit more cautious than the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and I have a few more questions that might sound a little more concerned about the Government’s thinking in terms of the future. As the foreword to the report states
“our forces require equipment which is state of the art. Just as we are refreshing what we require of our Armed Forces, we are reviewing the equipment they will need to face tomorrow’s threats and setting out a path for innovation for the future.”
That is absolutely right. However, should we be thinking about tomorrow or more about the day after tomorrow? I ask that in particular because yesterday’s Statement in the Commons reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to spending another £85 billion over the next four years on equipment and support for our Armed Forces. That spending is clearly very welcome, but it essentially takes us to the end of this Parliament. What is the longer-term thinking? Research and development is clearly important, but there is a danger that the Government are still thinking in parliamentary cycles and not necessarily about the wider defence procurement situation, which is very different and runs into decades, not merely two or three years. What thinking is going into longer-term planning? The Statement that has been repeated today gives some important insights, but it gives us tomorrow, not the day after tomorrow.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I have a slight concern that the new approach signals a shift away from global competition by default. It is right that the UK is resilient, that it has a secure industrial base, that we are able to engage in research and development and that we should be able to have first-class building of ships and other equipment, as stated, right across the United Kingdom. The defence industrial base is clearly very important.
The Statement talks about exports. If the UK is saying that it is no longer going for global competition by default, what work are Her Majesty’s Government doing to persuade our partners and allies, and others who might consider purchasing from the UK, that they should not also pursue a domestically focused agenda? While it is clearly important that we develop things domestically, that export market is flagged up, so there are some questions that may need further exploration.
I ask the Minister to give us a bit more information about the proposals on procurement. Over the past decades—this is not a problem of any individual Government; it is systematic—there have been issues about major capital projects being prone to overspend and overrun, with knock-on effects on the defence budget. How will the changes to procurement affect this? Will we not have so many bespoke projects? How does that fit with the discussions that the Government are having with our defence industry? Can the Minister reassure us that the proposals put forward in the Statement and the strategy document are led by defence needs, not defence industry priorities?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for their comments. I think I feel a bit like the musical song, “Getting to Know You”. I never seem to be quite away from this Dispatch Box on defence matters, but that is a privilege. I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their generally positive response to the strategy. I understand that the noble Baroness had some reservations and I shall try to assuage her concerns.
Frankly, I think this new defence, security and industrial strategy marks a watershed for the MoD. It is a substantial document. It is the first time in a long time that we have had true analytical discernment of what the challenges are. We need to understand not only what the threats are but how we are going to respond to them and then recognise that we actually need to be able to respond to them when they arise rather than thinking about the response and hoping to find the technology or the equipment some way down the line. The strategy completely turns on its head the whole pace and depth of the co-operation and collaboration with industry in a very positive manner.
The noble Lord raised the issue of jobs. As he is aware, the defence and security industry in this country is one of the major job providers. We think that over 200,000 jobs across the UK are sustained by these industries, which are globally recognised and renowned. The whole essence of the strategy is not only to secure the defence equipment support and technology that we need when we need it but also to ensure that there is an input to the economy and there is an export potential, so I think his reservation about the job situation is perhaps unfounded. We can look to the strategy to make a singular improvement in how we relate defence investment activity to a broader benefit to the economy and to our exports.
The noble Lord narrated a number of aspirations. I largely agree with them and I suggest that those are in essence met by the paper. He wanted to know how individual parts of the intelligence would join up, and he was interested in some of the specifics about acquisition and procurement.
In the section devoted to that, there are some very reassuring statements, including the proposed reform of the defence and security public contracts regulations, reforming the single-source contracts regulations, and publishing afresh the MoD SME Action Plan; I reassure him that is to be published later this year. In that connection, I mention the successful and effective investments of DASA, the defence and security accelerator, which has done pivotal work since it was introduced. It is an essential support, not least to SMEs and start-ups. That is conducive to a more diverse and innovative market.
The noble Lord particularly mentioned the artificial intelligence strategy. That will be in conjunction with the new defence artificial intelligence centre, which is hoping to accelerate the adoption of this transformative technology across the full spectrum of our capabilities and activities.
The noble Lord also raised the very important matter of measuring delivery against the laudable intentions and objectives of the strategy document. I say to him that, yes, this is recognised and that, because a lot of this is not just MoD but across government, Ministers across government, led by the Secretary of State for Defence, will regularly review progress against the strategy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was perhaps a little less warm in her reception of the document, although I detected that she is broadly in approval. She asked the pertinent question: is this about today or the day after tomorrow? I suggest that it is about both because, given how the strategy is structured, it recognises and continues much of the good work that has emerged in recent years. It is knitting that together, as I said, based on analysis of the threats we face and how we must respond. There are certain strategic imperatives and areas of independence of operation where we will want that to happen from providers in the UK. I say to her very strongly that this is a strong signpost of the direction of travel for both the MoD and our industry partners.
The noble Baroness asked a pertinent question, which was well justified, about the international community because, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, identified, we have departed from the former premise of “global by default”. She is quite right because, although there will be a premise on which we operate for our strategic imperatives and areas where independence of operation is absolutely critical—it will fall to our UK providers to assist with that—we also recognise of course the importance of the international community.
Our global alliances and partnerships are of strategic importance and, as a leading advocate for the development of innovative, adaptive capabilities, the UK will invest in emerging technologies, using the strength of the UK’s world-class industrial and technological base. We will be open to working with allies and partners through international programmes, and these existing initiatives will continue. There is clearly an opportunity to work closely with our partners and other industry providers abroad. The noble Baroness will be aware that the UK will work internationally to develop key military capabilities, such as developing our future combat air system.
So I reassure the noble Baroness that, although we understand that this Statement gives a clear direction of travel to encourage and support our United Kingdom-based defence and security industry partners, it is not to the exclusion of international provision, where we consider that that does not compromise our security but offers an attractive proposition.
The noble Baroness spoke about overrunning budgets in the past. That is a very legitimate reservation to mention. There have been procurement issues in the past and these have not been proud moments for the MoD. But the way in which the strategy is constructed and conceived, which is about engaging with industry from the earliest moment, identifying what we need, discussing with industry how that might be provided and then being sure that there is a constant monitoring process of how that develops as orders are placed, means that many issues that used to obstruct the smooth progress of our procurement contracts are now being ironed out. In some cases, they are actually being eradicated, because of the much more innovative and intelligent approach to how we liaise with our industry and security partners.
I have tried to answer the principal points the noble Lord and the noble Baroness raised. I hope I have addressed them adequately.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. As ever, pith is the order of the day.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register. This was a good review, which concentrated on many key points, including resilience. But is there not a risk that reducing the Regular Army reduces the connection between the Armed Forces and the public they serve, and hence reduces support for the Armed Forces and that very resilience we need to build up?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My noble friend asks a very perceptive question. We are satisfied that, despite a reduction to 72,500, we still have a very significant cohort of professional military. We are satisfied that we can discharge all the obligations falling upon us, whether in conflict, peacekeeping, or MACA requests for domestic resilience at home.
We have seen, through the response by the Armed Forces to the Covid pandemic, what tremendous respect and affection the public have for our Armed Forces, and I hope that that will endure. There may be other occasions where we deploy our Armed Forces on MACA tasks or other civil support tasks at home, and that will reinforce not only the professionalism they possess but the affection with which the public rightly regard them
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB) [V]
I draw attention to my interests in the register. As our Armed Forces move from a platform-centric approach to capability to one focused on technological advantage, it is ever more important to connect the operational requirement to the best available technology quickly. In the world of romance, we would be advocating the need for a speed dating agency.
Previously, the romance has failed because the potential match is broken between the cautious process of defence procurement and the monopolistic position of defence industry primes. The relationship has in fact been an obstacle to the rapid achievement of technological advantage. So I ask the Minister: which part of the new defence industrial strategy establishes the dating agency? Who is in charge of it and how does the wider world of technical opportunity sign up to it?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I say to the noble and gallant Lord that I love the analogy; it is very apposite. He identifies an important point. He is aware that there is constant consultation and discussion within the MoD with our single services about what their needs are. In the past, the blockage has been in translating need into the production of kit or equipment. This new strategy makes it clear that there will now be a much smoother, clearer progression. The early engagement with industry is critical to establishing that we have identified what the single services want—and then we have to make progress in delivering that as efficiently and as swiftly as possible.
Lord Grocott (Lab) [V]
My Lords, given the Prime Minister’s commitment to thousands of additional jobs in the defence sector, can the Minister tell the House how the jobs envisaged in this Statement will be distributed across the regions and nations of the United Kingdom? How will the strategy contribute to levelling up between the north and the south? If she cannot give all those details at the moment, can she please place a copy of them in the Library?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Yes, it is a very important part of what we are doing. As the noble Lord spoke, I was looking at page 13 of the strategy document, which has a marvellous depiction of the reach across the United Kingdom of what we do with industry and security. It is very clear to me that this is all about the union and levelling-up. The noble Lord will look at those locations and see the potential for many of these areas to benefit from the fruits of the new strategy.
Lord Chidgey (LD) [V]
The Government state that the future will be digital, cyber and technological. It so happens that many years ago I was fortunate to be an Admiralty student apprentice, becoming a graduate engineer in the process. I call on the Minister to set out where the Government plan to find the young students who excel in the applied sciences now, this year, ready to develop the technical and engineering skills required for the 2,500 apprentices over the next five years. Most importantly, where will they find the highly qualified and skilled instructors to train this new model of a technician-based workforce?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
This is all about an increasingly close partnership between government and industry. The noble Lord will be aware that industry, particularly in defence, employs not just many employees directly but many modern apprentices, and in some cases that has been found to be a proven route for learning and commitment to the corporate organisation. It is an exciting future for young people interested in STEM subjects. Across the nation, particularly in the devolved Administration areas, where I have engagement, there is an interest in progressing STEM and using the critical mass of the MoD providing those skills in the devolved nations to help them with their educational delivery.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, may I ask about the rollout of work? Part of the problem in the industry has been that work is inconsistent and erratic. While there is supposed to be a shipbuilding strategy, can she tell the House whether companies such as Harland and Wolff in Belfast will get actual orders to contribute by supplying ships and other vessels so that there is consistent work in the defence sector, rather than an erratic supply of work?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware from the White Paper published on Monday that very close attention was paid to the rollout of an exciting shipbuilding programme. There is an intention to refresh our national shipbuilding strategy, and the Secretary of State for Defence is the shipbuilding tsar. So there is a real and rooted interest in the future of the shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom. I am absolutely certain that all shipbuilders in the UK, if they are interested in the construction of naval marine craft, will engage with the MoD to see what opportunities await.
I can also say to the noble Lord, particularly in relation to Belfast, that of course we have Spirit AeroSystems and Thales. Indeed, I think it was Spirit AeroSystems that recently, this year, got a contract to develop the RAF’s lightweight affordable novel combat aircraft. We are very mindful of the contribution that can be made across the UK.
Lord Boyce (CB) [V]
My Lords, this comprehensive industrial strategy is very much to be welcomed. I focus on the shipbuilding aspects to seek clarification from the Minister on a couple of points. It would seem that opening competition for building of warships is to be nuanced, to use the expression used by the Minister yesterday in the other place and in the strategy paper itself. The noble Baroness has touched on this—but, to be clear, does that mean that building warships offshore in future will not be precluded?
Secondly, the impression is given that RFAs such as future support ships may be classified as warships for the purpose of shipbuilding. Have the Government considered the implications of this, in so far as the present classification of RFAs as merchant ships allows them, among other things, freedom of navigation in certain territorial waters not allowed to warships?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I think the noble and gallant Lord would agree that what was outlined in the Command Paper is exciting, not just for the UK shipbuilding industry but for the Royal Navy. The thrust of the security and industrial strategy paper is obviously that we want to be sure that we have a sustainable defence industry in the UK, which includes shipbuilding.
On the noble Lord’s particular question on whether we would never look abroad for a ship, I would not say that. It would be a very short-sighted view to take. There might be a situation where a product was available and we would think it safe to buy it without compromising our operational independence.
The classification of ships is clearly a matter for the Secretary of State to determine. I am sure he will do that on a case-by-case basis.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I think I would give eight out of 10 for this. I am delighted that the Government recognise the importance of defence industries and the sovereign capability. But I join the broadside from the other side of the House—from the noble and gallant Lord—about shipbuilding. Some months ago, the Prime Minister said that there was a renaissance in British shipbuilding, and he mentioned a lot of frigate orders. Since then, there has not be a single frigate order. The Type 32 talked about is not even on the design board. The first three Type 26 frigates were ordered five years ago and the first will not be delivered for another six years, which is appalling. Have there been any meetings between the Secretary of State, the Minister for Defence Procurement and BAE Systems to try to squeeze the time needed to build these ships, which would make them a lot cheaper, and to get sensible orders in for the remaining five, driving the costs down—or are they leaving it just to run and run as a cash cow for BAE Systems?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
To take the last point first, no, absolutely not. While I welcome the noble Lord’s eight out of 10 for the report, which suggests that we are making progress, I think he makes a slightly harsh assessment of the shipbuilding programme. He is aware that we are committed to the eight Type 26 frigates being built in the Clyde, replacing the Type 23s and being in service for the late 2020s. He is also aware of the five Type 31s being constructed in the Forth at Rosyth, which should also be in service for the late 2020s. The Prime Minister outlined the desire to have five Type 22s. There is a steady drumbeat of orders and the yards are processing these orders. If I may say so, the noble Lord’s representation of the situation is rather dismal and not warranted.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, to follow up on the question from my noble friend Lady Smith, military procurement has a history of overrunning projects, which people will not back out of because of personal involvement—and there is something in there, too, about jobs. Are we going to have a strategy and justification for saying no to a project, particularly if that means that we are not buying an off-the-shelf replacement which meets a battlefield capacity that we think we might need?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am sure the noble Lord will understand that the budget constraints on all departments, not least the MoD, are visible and exacting. Certainly, the MoD is very mindful, which is what underpins the strategy. How we spend money in future has to do two things: achieving the procurement and acquisition of the technology that we need as swiftly as we can get it when we need it, and ensuring that we contribute to the broader economy by generating activity in the domestic economy and possibly the potential for exports. The scenario that the noble Lord envisages is unlikely to arise because from now on procurement will proceed on a very different basis from what we have known in the past.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
I remind the House of my interest as chairman of the Reserve Forces 2030 review. If we are to meet the ambitions of the integrated review, we need to find better ways to share skills between the private sector and defence. One way is the use of the sponsored reserve—for example, the Voyager programme, whereby Airbus engineers service the aircraft during the week then don their uniforms at weekends, giving an assured capability. That is, however, an underutilised resource, with fewer than 1,500 instances across defence. Is now the time to ensure that all future major defence contracts include a provision for sponsored reserves?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his interest in and continued focus on reserves. I also thank him for his report, the Reserve Forces 2030 review, which will be presented to Parliament soon, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in another place on Monday. As the Secretary of State also acknowledged, in previous decades there has been resistance within MoD to recognising the potential of reserves and using them properly. On sponsored reserves, which my noble friend highlights, they are indeed already playing a significant role. I know that the Armed Forces are looking at the options for developing their role, for example in growth areas like space, cyber and other applied digital skills.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, as president of the CBI, I can say that industry welcomes the new defence and security and industrial strategy, or DSIS, and the vision that lays out the defence sector’s strategic relationship with industry. The DSIS is ambitious regarding R&D and innovation, exportability and global Britain, and the creation of BARPA is an exciting opportunity. Will the Minister explain how the Government will ensure that innovation is rewarded fairly with a collaborative approach, with the management of intellectual property helping to crowd in private sector investment and MoD R&D activity? Also, does she agree that, by using its purchasing power to help pull developing technologies through to market at the leading edge of science and technology, it will drive prosperity and generate thousands of highly skilled jobs across the country?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The last point the noble Lord alluded to is very important. Yes, I agree, and we hope that that indeed will be the consequence of the application of this strategy in practice.
On the other issues to which the noble Lord referred, again, early, close engagement between MoD and industry will go a long way to achieving the clarification he seeks. Certainly, introducing intellectual property strategies into the MoD’s acquisition processes for defence programmes to better incentivise and manage risk will also go a long way towards addressing some of the points he raises.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the integrated review and the defence papers that have come from it; that shows a willingness to engage in long-term thinking. My concern is that the emphasis on sovereign capability comes up against our long history of overspending on defence procurement and the difficulty of controlling programmes. What is the Government’s attitude towards common European defence procurement as a means of securing greater cost-efficiency? Why is it that in Europe we are ending up with two separate attempts to produce a next-generation future combat air system? Would it not make more sense to go for a single common approach? In the past, the financial viability of UK defence business has often been secured by arms sales. Do the Government recognise that in future, this is likely to come up against lots of ethical foreign policy and human rights concerns?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The strategy lays out a clear basis for how we will engage not just with our companies at home but with potential suppliers abroad. At the end of the day, we want a quality product providing what our Armed Forces need at a price fair to the taxpayer. Internally, we will be very clear about the pricing structures for these products. Equally, we are very clear that, if we are going abroad or dealing with an international provider, we will monitor and scrutinise that closely. We will be guided on a case-by-case basis as to what we need, who best can provide it and whether it needs to be regarded as a strategic imperative or to have operational independence, in which case it will almost certainly be with a UK provider.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, it is all very well for the Government to tell us that there will be opportunities for the British defence industry. Does the Minister agree that sometimes, contracts have been awarded strongly influenced by political or industrial pressures, which sometimes leave our forces with unbalanced structures and indeed with equipment inferior to the best available? Surely, the prime need is that the forces should get the best that is available. One example is the Challenger 2 battle tank: the promised export orders fizzled out very quickly and we were left with a tank which could not share its ammunition with any of the other NATO forces.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The sort of scenario to which my noble friend refers may well have happened in the past—but that is where it belongs. The point of this strategy is that there will be hard imperatives for the commercial decisions we take. These will be based on what we need, what is best and who can best provide it for us.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that the time allocated for this Statement is now up; my apologies to the speakers who were not called.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask all Members to respect social distancing.
For the Third Reading of the Domestic Abuse Bill, I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are discouraged; any Member wishing to ask such a question must email the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the question is put, they must make this clear when speaking. We will now begin.
Domestic Abuse Bill
Wednesday 24th March 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 View all Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 184-I Amendment for Third Reading - (19 Mar 2021)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies a minor defect in the drafting.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for your Lordships’ patience in enabling me to table and move this short amendment, whose purpose is to correct a minor defect in my original drafting, for which I apologise. I am grateful to the clerks for their advice.
I understand from the Sunday Telegraph that the Government are going to create a super-database, which would include domestic abusers and stalkers, as well as sex offenders. If this were the case, I would naturally be delighted. This would enable police, prison and probation services to track offenders guilty of violence against women and would be a huge step forward in our efforts to tackle gender-based violence and misogyny.
I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned over many years to make this a reality, especially my formidable friend Laura Richards, as well as survivors and the families and friends of victims. I emphasise that we have never been asking for a separate register for stalkers and perpetrators of domestic violence but rather that they should be included on ViSOR—the violent offender and sex offender register. I am sure that we will receive more details when the amendment agreed last week is considered by the Commons after Easter, but I hope that the intention, if not the details, will be on the face of the Bill. Likewise, I have outlined details of the perpetrator strategy which must be an integral part of the policy relating to the database. There must be a statutory requirement for police, prison and probation services to risk assess and manage perpetrators, in partnership with domestic abuse and stalking services. Unless this is mandatory, the key professionals will not always come to the table, and their participation is vital.
I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his work on these issues and, specifically, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for all that she has done and for her letter received this morning. Sadly, the letter was not as explicit as some of the media briefings, but I am grateful to her for recognising that there is a consensus that more needs to be done. I suggest that there is a consensus on the actions needed. As the noble Baroness has said in the past, we have already agreed on the ends; I think and hope that, as a consequence of the debate and vote on my amendment on Report, we are now close to agreeing on the means that will bring about a cultural change, focusing on the perpetrators and saving lives. I look forward to hearing the results of the discussions between her officials and experts in developing the database and the perpetrator strategy. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, I first apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford, who is unable to be present today. The Home Secretary has asked my noble friend to deputise for her at today’s meeting of the G6, which the UK is hosting. The G6 meeting of Interior Ministers is one of the most important long-term, multilateral forums in which to discuss priority home affairs issues with some of our closest security partners. I hope that noble Lords will therefore understand the importance of my noble friend attending that meeting, but she is, none the less, disappointed that this means that she cannot be here today.
I turn briefly to the amendment which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, has explained, is purely a drafting amendment and, as such, the Government will not oppose it. My noble friend made clear on Report what the Government’s substantive view now is of Clause 85 of the Bill. I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not repeat that position today. It is now for the other place to consider this and other amendments agreed by your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for expressing the Government’s position on this amendment. I am sure we are all very proud of the fact that his noble friend Lady Williams, the Minister, is representing the Government at the meeting of the G6.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I hope noble Lords will permit me to say a few words to mark the completion of the passage of the Bill through this House. I say, with some hesitation, that this is one of those Bills which has shown your Lordships’ House as its best. My hesitation does not arise from the proceedings on the Bill. Those were marked by speeches of high calibre and engaged debate and, undoubtedly, led to an improved Bill. My hesitation is due to the fact that this was the first Bill on which I worked in my time in this House. When I began work on it, I had nothing to compare it to, but I was fortunate to have the support and wise counsel of my noble friends Lady Williams of Trafford and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. They were right about everything else they told me so, as they have assured me that this Bill shows the House at its best, I am relying on them to be right about that as well.
Having mentioned my noble friends, I must pay tribute to them and give my thanks to those who have supported them and me in this endeavour. We have had the benefit of expert support from officials and lawyers across no fewer than eight government departments: the Home Office; my department, the MoJ; the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; the Department for Education; the Department of Health and Social Care; the Department for Work and Pensions; the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy; and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport; not to mention the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which have also had a hand in this Bill. I also thank the Bill managers, Charles, Pommy, Oliver and Georgina, and the private secretaries, Rebecca and Patrick; their work has been exceptional. If nothing else, the range of government departments and people I have just mentioned shows that tackling domestic abuse is everyone’s business. We are very grateful to all those involved across government.
In addition, we are grateful to Members from across the House. I thank those on the Front Benches opposite for the constructive way in which they have dealt with the Bill, and the very courteous and constructive way in which they have engaged with me. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—I am particularly pleased that this Bill is the culmination of his four-year campaign on the issue of GP fees. Last, but certainly not least, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for bravely sharing his own experiences of domestic abuse, and to his colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Burt of Solihull, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames.
I will also take a moment to thank other Members of this House who have worked very hard. I thank my noble friend Lady Newlove, as well as the organisations which aided her, on their work on non-fatal strangulation —something that is now part of the Bill as a Government-drafted amendment. I thank my noble friend Lady Morgan for her work on threats to release intimate images. Again, this is now part of the Bill as a Government-drafted amendment. In that context, I must give my personal thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who discussed with me some of the legal issues raised by that amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and my noble friends Lady Bertin and Lady Sanderson—if I may respectfully group them together—for their campaigning on coercive and controlling behaviour, which also is now part of a Government-drafted amendment. I thank my noble friend Lord Polak, who campaigned tirelessly on community-based services. This is something we have now taken on board. We may not have agreed on all points, but I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell and Lady Grey-Thompson, for raising the important issue of carers in the Bill, which will be explored further in another place. Finally, I thank my noble friend Lady Altmann and the other sponsors of the amendments dealing with get. It is a somewhat recondite point, but one which causes real distress and suffering.
Whether we have agreed or disagreed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, mentioned a moment ago, in scrutinising this Bill, we have all been striving for the same outcome: ensuring that victims of domestic abuse and their children have better protection and support, and that perpetrators are brought to justice. As she said, the differences have invariably been about the means of achieving this, not the ends involved.
We will of course reflect carefully on the nine amendments agreed by your Lordships’ House against the advice of the Government. We will set out our position when the Bill returns from the other place in due course. We will inevitably debate this Bill at a future date, but I know that all noble Lords will join me in hoping that it will soon be on the statute book, making a real, tangible and positive difference to the 2.3 million victims of domestic abuse each year. I therefore beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, along with my noble friends Lord Kennedy of Southwark, Lady Wilcox of Newport and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, I will take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and the Bill team for the patience and willingness to listen that they have shown throughout the passage of this Bill—not just in the Chamber but in the very many meetings that have been held with noble Lords on issues raised in amendments, and in the debates that have taken place. There have been a significant number of instances when Ministers have acknowledged the arguments that have been made in support of amendments and accepted them, put down appropriate government amendments or given undertakings of progress towards the objectives being sought that did not require amendments to the Bill. Ministers deserve full credit for that, and for their willingness to consider the arguments presented.
We have also really appreciated the helpful and informative briefings we have received from outside organisations committed to addressing the issues covered by this Bill. Along with my Front-Bench colleagues, I thank Grace Wright in our office for all the extensive and invaluable work she has done, liaising with so many others involved with the Bill both in Parliament and outside, and keeping us fully briefed on the Bill and its amendments as it has progressed through this House.
There have been a significant number of occasions when this House has agreed amendments to the Bill against the advice of the Government. It remains to be seen what will happen when those amendments are considered by the Commons in what I fear will be a somewhat truncated debate in the other place. What has been interesting is the number of amendments that the Government have accepted, or that have been carried in this House, which have been led not by Front-Benchers but by Back-Benchers, Cross-Benchers and the Bishops’ Benches. That reflects the wide cross-party, Cross-Bench and Bishops’-Bench backing that there has been for so many of the issues debated during the passage of this Bill. It is a Bill that has had very little to do with party politics.
The Bill now goes back to the Commons, where I hope it will not just be the Lords amendments that have government support that will be fully considered. While much progress has been made, there is still scope for further improvement in, and addition to, the content of a Bill that is rightly regarded as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to address head-on the major issue of the unacceptable level of domestic abuse in our society.
We have talked about the Istanbul convention at some length during our debates. The stated purpose of the convention is preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. Turkey has just made a decision to annul its ratification of the convention and Poland appears set to follow. This is a major backward step. America under President Biden and European leaders have condemned Turkey’s action. Sadly, we cannot add our voice to theirs, because we have still not ratified the convention. Let us hope that by the time this Bill has had further consideration, completed all its parliamentary stages and become an Act, we will be in a position to ratify the convention in full, and no longer be outsiders.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, stole my line. I was going to say that this Bill represents the House at its very best. I can most certainly confirm that to him. The Government have not only listened but gone out of their way to examine the feasibility of good ideas brought forward from all parts of the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, and the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, have all gone the extra mile, and I would particularly like to thank their incredibly hard-working Bill teams.
Speaking of which, I thank our own one-woman Bill team, Sarah Pughe, who has responded to my pretty much daily calls with good humour and total dedication. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I would also like to thank all the outside organisations which have given freely of their time and expertise to help us with this Bill.
However, the wins in the Bill are not for us; they are for the victims and their children. So I thank the Government on their behalf, especially for accepting some of the major amendments on non-fatal strangulation, threats to share intimate images and the extension of the ban on cross-examination. I thank them also for accepting the amendment on post-separation abuse, although I was sorry that this was won at the cost of not moving the amendment that would have added disabled people’s carers into the definition of “personally connected”, the initial vote on which had previously secured a huge majority.
We were also promised a public consultation on evicting perpetrators who are joint tenants and who sit pretty in the family home while the victim is forced to leave. The cross-party group that moved this amendment and others will be holding the Government’s feet to this particular fire, to see what measures they will take to redress this injustice.
Despite strong votes in favour of measures to support them, migrant women were losers in the Bill. There will be no information firewall between the police and immigration, no recourse to public funds and no equality of protection, even though the latter is prescribed by the Istanbul convention. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, we still have to ratify this, and it weakens our position internationally while we are in that situation.
All victims were potential losers, with the failure of the Government to acknowledge strong support for perpetrator strategy amendments. There will be no multi-agency co-operation, no register of perpetrators and no overall perpetrator strategy—yet. But the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, certainly gives us hope. Victims who commit violence against the perpetrator will not have the justification of reasonable force, despite usually being weaker and having to resort to using a weapon to defend themselves, and nor will those who commit offences under coercion. The Government also rejected a registration system for child contact centres. All these amendments commanded strong majorities, so we may well see them again once they have been discussed in the Commons. I hope some further movement can be made by the Government to give these victims the protection they deserve.
Finally, I thank our Bill team, especially my co-leader and noble friend Lord Paddick, who has done so much of the heavy lifting where the police are concerned. He has helped and guided me throughout. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, is not the only one for whom this is the first Bill he has led on. I thank my noble friend Lord Marks, whose amazing skill and knowledge has brought us through the courts issues, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who did so much in the preparatory stages and on migrant women, and whose support for me has led to a close personal friendship. Other noble Lords have added their passion and expertise, including my noble friends Lady Brinton, Lady Hussein-Ece, Lady Jolly and Lady Walmsley, my noble friends Lord Strasburger, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill and Lord Alderdice, and last—but certainly not least—my noble friend Lady Benjamin. I also give great thanks to my noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lady Featherstone for their contributions in Committee.
It has long been an ambition of mine to play a leadership role on this historic Domestic Abuse Bill. I am so grateful to have had the opportunity to play my part. Thank you.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted and honoured to make the concluding Cross-Bench speech at the Third Reading of this important—indeed, landmark—piece of legislation. I first thank, as so many others have, the three Ministers who have piloted the Bill through this House and the hard-working Bill team. They are so essential to the whole process. The Ministers have been most courteous and extremely hard-working, and they have listened sympathetically, sometimes, to the large number of amendments and the enthusiasm—sometimes passion—with which we have put forward our points of view.
This has become a very good Bill. The Government are to be congratulated on much of the draft Bill and on their amendments, which go a long way, but not quite the whole way, to making it an excellent Act. The widening of the interpretation of domestic abuse and the groups personally connected is excellent. I am particularly delighted by the recognition of the adverse effect of domestic abuse on the children of the family. The appointment of a domestic abuse commissioner is very helpful and I hope the Government will listen sufficiently to her recommendations. There remain areas of considerable importance, which we are sending back to the other place for their reconsideration. I hope that many of our amendments may eventually be accepted and incorporated into the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has already said, it really will be time, when this Act is passed, to ratify the Istanbul convention.
There will be financial challenges, especially for local authorities, in carrying out the requirements of the legislation. It is important that there is no pecking order and that specialist community-based services are sufficiently funded. Migrants and refugees need to be put higher up on the list of those who need help. Those who are victims of domestic abuse ought not to be at risk, especially of the possibility of deportation. I have, as chairman of the National Commission on Forced Marriage, referred many times to the victims of forced marriage, especially the young women and men—some under 18—who are at risk of being forced into marriage. Equally, as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery, I remain concerned about some groups of victims of modern slavery, especially those in domestic servitude. I am glad that the draft statutory guidance refers specifically to these groups. In conclusion, I congratulate the Government on the Bill and hope there will be even more improvements made in the other place.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
I am delighted to have played a small part in this Bill, and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Wolfson and his colleagues: my noble friend Lord Parkinson, and, especially, my noble friend Lady Williams, who has been involved in so many Bills in this Session. I believe the Bill will leave the House in a better place.
I pay particular tribute to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Burt, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for supporting what I believe is a key amendment on recognising standards for all child contact centres and services. Just as a loophole which has been identified in safeguarding 16 to 19 year-old children will be closed by the important Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill, which passed its Second Reading last Friday, I believe this small but important amendment, moved so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and passed by the House, will close a potential and existing loophole by safeguarding children in all child contact centres. I hope my noble friend will embrace this small but important amendment, and that it will be maintained when the Bill passes to its next stages. I am delighted that the Bill has passed this House in a much-improved state. The Minister should take some credit for that.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, in the seven-plus years I have been in your Lordships’ House, I have been involved in a lot of Bills but this is the first of its kind. There was never one like this, because it has been special. The Bill was universally welcomed but then attracted about 200 amendments, which were fiercely argued. The Government suffered nine defeats in votes and made many concessions. There are still gaps. Other noble Lords have listed them but, for example, there is the Istanbul convention. However, the process has turned a good Bill into a very good Bill.
For me, making misogyny a crime was a priority. I am deeply sad we have not done that but we have moved towards it, and it is a step in the right direction by the Government which we can use to test the process. The Minister said something about this showing your Lordships’ House at its best, but I would argue the Bill shows the Government at their best as well. I wish this were the pattern with all Bills—that this House does its stuff and the Government listen. That would mean we produced much better legislation every time. On behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and myself, I thank the Ministers for all their hard work and co-operation. I say a big thank you to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, and the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. It has been an experience, and I think it has worked wonders.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I see the time and I hope the House will not think me discourteous if I respond very briefly. I am very grateful for the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. He was quite right to remind us that the Bill had cross-party support. He was also right to remind me to thank—I fear that I did not, but I do now—the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who brought his experience as a magistrate in family matters to the attention of the House, which was very helpful in number of issues, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, with whom I debated some of the legal matters. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for stealing her lines. I would put it this way: she reassured me that I was, in fact, correct when I said what I did.
The House benefited, as it always does, from the considerable experience and wise counsel of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I am sure we are all grateful to her. As for my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I hope she will allow me to disagree with her when she said that she played a small part. She did not; she played an important part and, with that very important correction, I very much endorse what she said.
Last but certainly not least, if I may put it in those terms, to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, praise the Government is a wonderful thing. It shows that miracles do happen. I can assure her that the Government always listen, we just cannot always say yes. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for being brief, but I do see the time and I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received a request to ask a short question of elucidation from the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the House for its leniency. I welcome the super register that has been proposed. I convey my thanks and respect to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It has been my long-standing hope to participate in a small way in this debate, and an honour to have done so. I extend my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Parkinson, for their contributions and dedication to this cause. It has been much noted that the sisterhood across the House was incredibly powerful, and I wanted to state that. We have a common purpose in making real changes to the lives of survivors, so will there be a public information campaign to empower women with a message that our society has marked this day to say that we utterly reject violence against women? It is everyone’s business, as has been said, to begin the process of eliminating violence and abuse. It will send a very powerful message to all, around the world, that we intend to stand against violence and abuse in every form.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness. Of course, this Government oppose violence in all forms, especially violence against women. As to the publicity campaign she mentions, she will be aware that there are a number of areas where the Government already have publicity in this area. I am very happy to speak to her to understand particularly what she has in mind, and I will arrange to have that conversation in due course.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I believe it is the intention of the House to proceed straight to the next business, but we shall have a short pause for the rearrangement of Front Benches and so on.
Financial Services Bill
Wednesday 24th March 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Financial Services Bill 2019-21 View all Financial Services Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 162-R-I(a) Amendment for Report - (22 Mar 2021)
15:26 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 296 / Noes: 255 - Amendment 1 agreed.
18:24 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 3 - Ayes: 276 / Noes: 276 -
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I shall call Members to speak in the order listed. Short questions for elucidation after the Minister’s response are discouraged. Any Member wishing to ask such a question must email the clerk. The groups are binding. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group to a Division must give notice in debate, or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part, remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.
Amendment 1
“Duty of care for financial service providers
(1) The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) In section 1C, after subsection (2)(e) insert—“(ea) the general principle that firms should not profit from exploiting a consumer’s vulnerability, behavioural biases or constrained choices;”.(3) After section 137C insert—“137CA FCA general rules: duty of care (1) The power of the FCA to make general rules includes power to introduce a duty of care owed by authorised persons to consumers in carrying out regulated activities under this Act.(2) The FCA must make rules in accordance with subsection (1) which come into force no later than 6 April 2022.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would strengthen the FCA’s consumer protection objective and introduce requirements for the FCA to make rules for financial services firms that amount to a statutory duty of care.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 1 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Eatwell. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for adding their cross-party support on this important issue and look forward to their contributions to the debate. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, the Deputy Leader of the House, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Lord, Lord True, and their officials for making time to discuss this issue after Committee, which has helped us considerably and shed some light on the complex set of consultations that the FCA and the Treasury itself are conducting over the next few months, all of which are happening, of course, during the pandemic and at a time of significant change in duties and responsibilities in all quarters.
In his excellent speech in Committee, my noble friend Lord Eatwell set out the case for the introduction of a duty of consumer care to be placed on financial services providers, which he argued would strengthen the FCA’s consumer protection objective and introduce requirements to ensure that firms operating in the financial sector should not profit from exploiting a consumer’s vulnerability, behavioural biases or constrained choices. I can do little better than rehearse his main points again. Markets in financial products sold to individuals, households and small businesses are seriously inefficient, mainly because of asymmetric information, as the seller of the product typically knows much more about the risks involved in making a particular investment or other financial transaction than does the consumer.
Secondly, given that the FCA’s strategic objective is about promoting competition in the market, thereby improving consumer outcomes, it can either regulate each individual financial product to ensure that the consumer is probably informed, or it could adopt the principle enshrined in Amendment 1 and make general rules, including the power to introduce a duty of care owed by authorised persons to their consumers. The case for a duty of care for consumers was argued very strongly at the time the current regulatory structure was set up; indeed, I was present in many of those debates. But, absent primary legislation or changes to it, the FCA has, perforce, adopted the first option and attempted to deal with each consumer detriment issue as it arises. However, by its own admission, this has not gone very well. From its consultation entitled, Our Future Approach to Consumers in 2017, through to the feedback statement published in April 2019, the FCA has wrestled with the issue of duty of care and is still wrestling today, with a review scheduled to start, we understand, in May 2021.
My noble friend’s case was that the status quo is failing and a new approach is urgently required for two main reasons. First, new products are always coming on to the market, which means that the FCA is always playing catch-up to introduce new rules and has to take time for appropriate consultation and so on to deal with the new threats to consumers. The rush to get a handle on “buy now, pay later” products in this legislation speaks volumes about that approach. Secondly, financial products are now available with one click via the internet, with all that that implies about the failure of the conventional approaches of “know your customer” and the need for careful concern about going through the paperwork and understanding the terms and conditions of what you may be signing up to. In short, fintech, with all the benefits it can bring—well argued by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes— signals the end of the current FCA regulation as we know it. The case for a duty of care approach is unanswerable.
Amendment 1 provides the FCA with the means to end its failure to meet its consumer protection duty through dogged adherence to a failing competition objective. The enactment of the power to introduce a duty of care for consumers would rightly place responsibility for ensuring that markets function well firmly on the shoulders of those who have the information required to attain that goal. If the FCA has the power to introduce a duty of care for consumers, it could finally begin to live up to its strategic objective.
Far too many consumers are being treated inappropriately, whether by the mis-selling of products, by the denial of rights or by obstruction of responses to complaints and so on. If the Government wish to improve on the consumer protections previously enshrined in EU legislation, the introduction of a duty of care on consumers is a safe and sure way forward. It is a way to ensure that markets function well for the benefit of the consumer, as it should be.
I am sure that, in responding to this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, will try to persuade us that there is no need for this amendment, as future consultations to be carried out by the FCA and the Treasury will cover all these points in detail and so all will be well. Indeed, either or both of these exercises may require primary legislation—that is quite likely—and we will be back again in a few months’ time debating the same issues all over again, when the Treasury has decided on its responses to the consultations and brings forward legislation to implement another generation of regulatory frameworks. I put it to the Government that, while the wording of the amendment may not be perfect, the intent—particularly the wording of subsection (2),
“that firms should not be profiting from exploiting a consumer’s vulnerability, behavioural biases or constrained choices”—
is worth holding on to and action should be taken now. I give notice that, in the absence of a positive response today, I am minded to test the opinion of the House on the amendment. However, if the Minister is prepared to commit to bring this back at Third Reading, with an agreed wording, we could work with her to settle this issue. I beg to move.
Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and to support this amendment. The noble Lord has made a strong and compelling case for both parts of the amendment. The case for and against a duty of care was discussed extensively in Grand Committee and I do not propose to revisit the arguments in detail.
In his speech in Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, made a simple but important point:
“The truth is that the industry has a systemic tendency to malfeasance.”—[Official Report, 22/2/21; col. GC 112.]
I listed in Committee some of the many serious instances of malfeasance over the last couple of decades—I am sure that they are familiar to us all—which amply demonstrate the truth of the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. There can be no doubt that the temptation to malfeasance and the opportunities for malfeasance grow, and are deeply rooted, in the huge inequality of arms. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, emphasised that in Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has just noted. There can be no doubt either that the culture within parts of the financial services industry is, to say the least, not oriented to serving the best interests of consumers. John Lanchester has graphically described the industry as treating its customers as “an extractive resource”. All this is true in an industry that is highly regulated. This inevitably leads to the conclusion that the regulatory regime is obviously and severely deficient.
The FCA has consulted on the duty of care at least eight times in the last five years and is about to do so again, starting in May, apparently. It is not clear, given the Treasury’s current consultation on the FSFRF, why we need two consultations covering the same ground. I know that some respondents to the HMT consultation have already proposed a new duty of best interest or duty of care. There is no reason to suppose that this new, and much delayed, FCA consultation will come up with anything more than equivocation, fence-sitting or long grass, if its previous efforts are anything to go by. Last time round, the FCA found that most respondents considered levels of consumer harm to be high and that change was needed to protect consumers. None of the financial services respondents wanted a duty of care, but 92% of consumers did, in a popular survey commissioned by the FCA’s own consumer panel.
The industry resists a duty of care for obvious reasons of self-interest, sometimes presented as a concern that such a duty would increase costs ultimately to the consumer. This does not say much for our financial services’ belief in competition, nor does it acknowledge the fact that, for example, PPI was sold at a commission rate of 87% or that the industry has had to find the funds to pay over £50 billion in redress for PPI alone.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to this amendment. I have worked in this industry for many years. The numerous scams, frauds and scandals that have plagued consumers are ongoing. It seems clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said, that the Financial Services and Markets Acts 2000 does not protect consumers. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his clear explanation of why the amendment, in all its parts, is required.
A duty of care on providers to make sure that they are considering the interests of their customers would certainly help to address the asymmetry of information between the providers and the consumers. It might also assist customers in the manner that the products that are developed are offered. Too often, providers develop new products with new complexities that are clearly not user-friendly. The FCA requirements are that the risks and details of the products must be disclosed, but the disclosure documents are impenetrable to the ordinary person. Those working at the FCA and those working for the providers understand the language used—it is natural to them—but the vast majority of the public do not understand the specific product literature which the FCA has been relying on to offer this kind of protection. It is clearly not helping consumers to be faced with bamboozling jargon and many pages of legalese in the product descriptions and the terms and conditions.
The FCA consulted on this in 2017 and it released a statement in 2019, and other consultations have covered this as well. I congratulate the Government for having engaged on this issue, and my noble friends Lord True, Lady Penn and Lord Howe; I know they have all worked on this issue. But, from a practical perspective, and as someone who has worked in this industry, developed product for consumers and worked with consumers on the other side who have suffered detriment, I believe that the fears about competition are somewhat overdone. All firms, if they have a duty of care, will then have to look after customers, so the issue of competition should not really pose so much of an impediment. Markets currently function in the interests of providers rather than consumers, and regulators are reactive to problems rather than trying to pre-empt problems that have been highlighted and pointed out for two or three years before anything is actually done—by which time so many consumers have lost out.
Of course I believe that firms should not profit from exploiting the public’s lack of understanding and education when it comes to retail financial services. Successive Governments have talked about improving financial literacy, but they have not managed to achieve this. In practice, providers do not know their customers, the customers do not understand the product literature and, indeed, it seems that there is very often no requirement for the provider to even ask basic questions of the consumer before the consumer buys a particular product. There are countless examples of areas where just a basic question could have prevented a consumer buying an inappropriate product.
So I urge my noble friend on the Front Bench to take up the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and work with him and other interested Peers to come up with a form of words for Third Reading that can prevent a vote on this issue and can also help accelerate the important duty of care that is required. Waiting for a consultation later this year is simply not good enough when it comes to the kinds of scandals and scams that we know are going on day in and day out.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and her powerful plea, which I hope the Government will listen to. I also speak to Amendment 1 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, Lord Sharkey and Lord Eatwell, to which I was pleased to attach my name, as I did to a very similar amendment in Committee.
Any noble Lords who have read the Second Reading debate will note that I majored on a “duty of care” in my speech. I used what you might call an expanded definition of “duty of care” to suggest that it might not be too much to put on the face of the Bill a demand that the financial sector should not engage in reckless, fraudulent, corrupt, obviously damaging systemic behaviour, including shipping off tranches of cash into tax havens, deploying complex financial instruments that they clearly do not understand and handing over control of markets to automated systems without adequate controls—things that threaten the security of all of us. But while I believe that principle remains sound, the lawyers convinced me that, in narrow legal terms, “duty of care” could not be stretched that far.
What the amendment here clearly introduces is a duty of care to individual customers. As proposed new subsection (2)(ea) says, their
“vulnerability, behavioural biases or constrained choices”
should not be exploited. Once, perhaps, such a clause was not necessary. There was a not ideal, but certainly useful, constraining paternalism: your local bank manager would look after you, both in limiting borrowing and in making allowances for unexpected disasters, personal and business. That has long gone—as of course has, almost universally, the local bank manager and, all too often, the local bank branch—so we need the law to step in to protect people to constrain the behaviour of financial institutions. As noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said, we are in a situation where malfeasance has just continued to grow, with technical developments being one cause of that and, as noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said, scandals and fraud have plagued consumers.
So that is the institutional side of where we are, but we also have to think about the state that people and our society are in today and make the law fit for our modern times, for these are times of massive insecurity. The idea of saving, or of even making the incoming funds match the essential outgoings each month, was an impossible dream for millions of people even before the arrival of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
No one can know when sudden illness might strike—this Bill has been championed by Macmillan Cancer Support, to whose work I give credit—or it could be a redundancy or a pandemic that strikes people unexpectedly. That is one side of vulnerability and care that financial institutions should acknowledge. As Macmillan highlights, almost one in three of those severely financially impacted by their cancer diagnosis had to take out a loan or credit card debt. That is a public health issue. What we have are institutions that have been making profit from customers, sometimes for decades, and they have a duty to act compassionately and fairly in such circumstances.
But I think we also need to pay a bit of attention to the elements of the proposed new clause referring to “behavioural biases” and “constrained choices”. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, has been a rather isolated champion in this Bill on issues around the use of artificial intelligence algorithms and issues such as their potential bias, but he has also highlighted the way in which financial companies now have a historically uniquely detailed understanding of customer behaviour and the chance to exploit that through complex, opaque mechanisms.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, said in introducing an amendment, there has always been asymmetrical access to information between financial sector companies and their clients, but this has been massively magnified by technology—something that is only likely to grow. To create an assumption that this inequality of arms should not be misused should, we hope, constrain the behaviour of the financial sector—or at least, if it does not do that, provide a potential route for redress should it occur. There are already many who have need to seek redress for the behaviour of financial sector companies. I spent time with some of them this morning at a meeting of the Transparency Task Force.
As noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, the Government are likely now to say “Wait”—but why? We know that there is already an existing massive problem and a huge risk. If the Government do not acknowledge the need to act now, I offer the Green group’s strong support for the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to test the view of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Amendment 1. First, I must apologise to the House that I have been unable to participate in earlier stages of the Bill—a matter of real regret to me—but I have been following proceedings closely. I declare an interest as a member of the Financial Inclusion Commission and president of the Money Advice Trust.
I am very keen to support this amendment, which takes forward a very important recommendation from the report of the Financial Exclusion Select Committee, which I chaired, in 2017. That report recommended an expansion of the remit of the Financial Conduct Authority to include both a statutory duty to promote financial inclusion, and a statutory duty of care. In my view, the two are closely linked, but I will obviously focus now on this very important duty of care amendment.
At the Liaison Committee’s follow-up inquiry on financial exclusion, held only last week, powerful evidence was received from charities and others active in the sector that the commercial model only goes so far, and that legislation is required to put an obligation on banks and other financial service providers to provide appropriate services to customers and have proper regard to inclusion.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate on the first group of amendments on the first day of Report on the Financial Services Bill. I declare my interests as set out in the register.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, on tabling this amendment and on the way in which he introduced it. These arguments have been put since at least 2017, when we debated the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill. What has happened in the interim has merely strengthened those arguments on the need for a duty of care. During the last year, as in so many other areas of life, we have seen exactly why something in this space would assist. Now that we have the excellent vaccine rollout and inoculation programme, such a duty would put a capital “B” into the “build back better” approach. It would be a real example of “better”.
I will not rehearse the arguments that I made at Second Reading and in Committee. I want to take this opportunity again to thank Macmillan Cancer Support and congratulate it for everything that it continues to do in this area. According to the testimony of a cancer patient,
“I felt I was battling my bank as well as cancer.”
Will the Minister consider what can be done between Report and Third Reading? With the Easter break in between, there is time, so this is more than timely. Can she reassure noble Lords of the potential for movement on this specific point of a duty of care?
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I shall be very brief. I spoke on this issue at length in Committee. The Government may take note that every single speaker today from across the House has supported the concept of a duty of care and non-exploitation and has urged the Government to act.
In all the speeches, both before today and referenced again today, we have heard about this chain of malfeasance, whether it has been described as scandal or fraud or an abuse of customers. Clearly, the existing legislation does not work, or we would not have this kind of history with new scandals cropping up, sadly, on a regular basis. Like it or not, treating customers fairly is interpreted by both the industry and the regulator as exceedingly light touch, to be offset by the “caveat emptor” principle—the taking of personal responsibility—to which the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, referred. This is unacceptable. This Government often say that they focus on outcomes. The outcomes have been unacceptable. Look at the outcomes and the chain of scandals. Here is the opportunity to act.
In response, the Minister might say that there are effective tools, such as the senior managers and certification regime. Anyone who has followed the progress of this Bill and the amendments through Committee will have heard how that has broken down. It has, in effect, become something of a busted flush. The Minister might say that scandals have been picked up very early because we have working whistleblowing channels. Again, from listening to the discussion throughout Committee stage, it is clear that this scheme is not working. The analysis in the Gloster report reinforces that.
We do not need a ninth consultation. Every time there is another major scandal, the FCA’s response is to have another consultation. In the end, there is something like a freckle of movement. This issue needs to be seized by the scruff of the neck and resolved before more people suffer injury. The regulator needs to be put on the front foot. By supporting this concept and this amendment or something equivalent to it, the regulator will finally be put on the front foot and the industry will recognise that it has been duly warned and must reconsider the way in which it behaves.
I hope that we shall hear from the Minister that we shall see an equivalent proposal at Third Reading because, if not, I will not hesitate to ask all my colleagues and every Member of your Lordships’ House to support any decision by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to move this to a Division.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, during our debates on this Bill, we have referred several times to the success of principles-based regulation in this country. We have contrasted it with the more prescriptive regulatory structures introduced within the European Union. The idea of a duty of care is a prime example of principles-based regulation because it presents a principle from which particular actions can be derived. It is now very important, given the financial stresses created by the pandemic to which several noble Lords have referred in their contributions to this debate. This is but one example of the unexpected pressures in the financial system that arise on a regular basis, not least because of the fintech innovations referred to earlier which require a flexible, principles-based approach. The strength of this approach is that is encompasses financial innovation—the changes to which many noble Lords have referred.
I understand that later in the consideration of this Bill the Government will bring forward measures to regulate the “buy now, pay later” market. This would already have been encompassed in a duty of care. It would not have slipped through the gap. If there had been a general duty of care in place, consumers would have received some degree of protection already.
One of the striking things about the issue of a duty of care and the FCA rulebook is that a number of measures that amount to a duty of care exist in the rulebook already. There are “know your customer”, “treating customers fairly” and the consumer credit rules, which require assessment of creditworthiness. What is striking is that this specific list has gaps in it.
Many noble Lords referred to the examples of malfeasance; it is this structure that creates the environment for and encourages malfeasance. It encourages testing of boundaries and of gaps. If there were instead a broad principle it would significantly discourage that persistent, competitive drive to test the gaps that exist in the current list of consumer protection measures in the FCA rulebook.
It is not simply that the lack of a duty of care creates the inability to deal with malfeasance; it actually creates it by the structure it presents for a very competitive market. We all know that this particular structure—having a specific list of something in a legal document—always raises the question of what has been left out. That is exactly the case in the FCA rulebook. It lacks the firm foundation of principle.
In Grand Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, was quite right to argue in summing up that
“the FCA is already taking steps to ensure that financial services firms exercise due care and regard when offering products, services and advice to consumers.”
She was right that there is a list, but she was quite wrong to then argue that a statutory duty of care
“does not add to the FCA’s existing powers in this area.”—[Official Report, 22/2/21; col. GC 116.]
Of course it does. It must do, in one of the most dynamic industries in the United Kingdom, associated with innovation, change and competition. It is the very nature of successful principles-based regulation that actions should derive from general principles.
The FCA lacks this statutory declaration of general principle. This is why Macmillan Cancer Support’s campaign Banking on Change was necessary, and why it is so important to place a general principle of duty of care on the statute book. My noble friend Lord Stevenson has made a very specific offer to the Minister with respect to Third Reading. I strongly urge her to accept it.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have put forward this amendment, and I appreciate the strength of feeling that exists around this important issue. I also pay tribute to the arguments made in previous stages of this Bill, including in Grand Committee. Noble Lords have spoken passionately about the need to tackle issues of consumer harm that exist in the financial services industry, and I agree that it is essential that this issue is addressed effectively.
The Government are committed to ensuring that financial services consumers are protected and that steps are taken quickly to address issues when they are identified. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, argued for a principles-based approach to financial services regulation. That is what is contained in the FCA’s principles for business, which govern financial services firms’ treatment of their customers, as well as the specific requirements in the FCA’s handbook.
I hope noble Lords will not mind if I set out the principles of business, because that will help us in considering the amendment. The principles include:
“A firm must conduct its business with integrity … A firm must conduct its business with due skill, care, and diligence … A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly … A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair, and not misleading … A firm must manage conflicts of interest fairly, both between itself and its customers and between a customer and another client … A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgment.”
These fundamental principles aim to protect consumers who often have less knowledge and expertise than the firms providing them services.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, thank you for a very good debate. It has been a fine example of the way in which Report brings together the arguments made in Committee and allows the House to come to a collective view about the issue in question.
In her customary way, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, gave a full and considered response, and I thank her for that. She focused more on what she called the strength of feeling in the House and did not really engage with the strength of the argument. I hope that when she reflects on that, she may recognise that that is a bit of a weakness. The arguments are not to be ignored simply because they are expressed strongly. They are to be looked at seriously, because they are trying to attack a pernicious problem that is causing huge consumer detriment, as exemplified in the many speeches we have heard today, particularly from those who have worked in the industry for a number of years. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and others gave examples that were redolent of the experience of trying to make the system work.
I think the Minister also accepted in her speech that the Government want regulatory structure to protect consumers and said that the level of harm was perhaps too high. In explaining how the FCA’s three objectives are expected to operate—which must be a logical mess, when you analyse them—she illustrated why my noble friend Lord Eatwell and others wish that we had a better, principle-based and less list-based structure for the way in which the regulators carry out their work. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, put it—he could not have put it more simply—FiSMA does not protect consumers, malfeasance is flourishing and may even be encouraged by the current structure, and redress is patchy, lengthy and not really available to those who need it most.
The issue before the House, therefore, is whether the existing process and procedures, the existing wording which sets them out and the existing objectives, which are constraining what the FCA can and cannot do, are the best we can get to. The arguments that have been made, particularly the devastating figures from the ombudsman’s service, suggest that we are not in a good place on this. This was picked up by many speakers, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Kramer.
In the context of the need for better financial well-being as we recover from the pandemic and the chance to do things better, are we really saying that the best we can come up with is to wait for another consultation, which will probably just be another exercise in playing catch-up and result in a longer list of rules and requirements? Why do we not just set a very high tide mark for what we expect our regulators to do and, if the consultation proves the case, reduce the requirements where that is proportionate and appropriate?
I do not understand why the Minister felt unable to take the issue away, talk about it and come back at Third Reading. She challenged us to put our views to the House. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House in this matter.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I shall now put the Question. We have heard a Member taking part remotely say that they wish to divide the House in support of this amendment, and I will take that into account. The Question is that Amendment 1 be agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We now move to the group consisting of Amendment 2. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 2
“Periodic independent review of regulators
(1) The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) After section 1S (reviews) insert—“1SA Periodic independent review of regulators(1) The Treasury must appoint a group of at least three independent persons to conduct a periodic general review of the effectiveness of—(a) the Financial Conduct Authority,(b) the Prudential Regulation Authority, (c) the Bank of England in respect of its functions under Parts 1 and 5 of the Banking Act 2009 (bank resolution and payment systems) and Part 2 of the Financial Services Act 2012 (recognised clearing houses), and(d) the Payment Systems Regulator.(2) The general review must take place every two to three years and must include a review of—(a) internal operations and controls;(b) systems for responding to whistleblowers, parliamentary correspondence and reports, and public concerns;(c) regulatory perimeters;(d) the effectiveness of rules and the regulatory burden;(e) whether all statutory and public policy objectives have been met;(f) the operation and effectiveness of engagement practices before and during rule making;(g) the skills base of staff;(h) any other matter the independent persons consider relevant;(i) follow up from the previous review and any other intervening review under this Act;(j) any other matter requested by the Treasury or a relevant Committee of the House of Commons or House of Lords.(3) On completion of the review, the persons conducting it must make a written report to the Treasury—(a) setting out the result of the review, and(b) making such recommendations (if any) as the persons consider appropriate.(4) A copy of the report must be—(a) laid before Parliament, and(b) published in such manner as the Treasury considers appropriate.”(3) In section 1T (right to obtain documents and information) after “1S” insert “or 1SA”.”
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, this amendment is an evolution of the amendment I tabled in Committee and called the “Skilled person review of the regulators”. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for adding his name on Report.
Since Committee, I have received growing expressions of interest in the concept as an important process for improving financial services regulation—indeed, one that could be replicated for other systemic regulators. My purpose in tabling the amendment here is further exploration. I have reframed the amendment to be an independent person’s review via a new Section 1S(a) in FSMA that broadly follows the format and definitions already contained in Section 1S. Under the section, the Treasury can establish an independent person review of the FCA. However, it has not been deployed as a routine matter, but rather to deal ad hoc with specific instances, as have reviews under Section 77. My proposed new Section 1S(a) would provide for general review by at least three independent persons and would take place after every two to three years. That period has been chosen so that it can reflect when there are changes in appointments of the regulators. It also broadly reflects the two-year cycle envisaged in Australia for its financial regulator oversight board and the EU’s three-yearly reviews of the ESAs. Today, the ABI circulated a note supporting the idea, but it thinks that a longer period might be better, as indeed I first proposed.
I have also added to the list of regulators which are to be subject to the review to cover not only the PRA and the FCA, but the Bank of England for its other regulatory functions and the Payment Systems Regulator. I did that on the suggestion of UK Finance, which has also taken an interest in my amendment as potentially filling in a gap in accountability. It has argued in response to the Treasury’s framework review consultation that covering all banking and finance regulators is needed for a coherent and consistent approach to the whole sector while structural changes are breaking down the distinctions within it. I thought that a fair point and have included it as food for thought.
The list of issues for review are largely taken from the matters found to be at fault in the Gloster report, such as internal operations and controls, responding to whistleblowers, regulatory perimeter and the skills of staff. It also covers the effectiveness of rules and regulatory burdens, which it is important to study periodically as a check. But it is important to note that I do not propose some kind of routine second-guessing on rules as they are made, but more like an impact assessment after they have bedded in.
A long list may not be needed and could perhaps be left to the independent person to prioritise, but one other addition I have made is to follow up on any other intervening review. The amendment also provides a similar right to information and documents, as a Section 1S review would have, by adding proposed new Section 1S(a) to the existing provision in Section 1T of FSMA.
In the clauses that immediately precede this amendment, the PRA and FCA are each given the power to make all the policy and rules for financial services save for the broad public interest objectives and “have regard to” measures defined in FSMA. The way that that is done front-runs the conclusion of the future regulatory framework consultations, and I see two consequences. One, which is conceded in the Government’s consultation, is that Parliament will want to undertake additional scrutiny. We will deal with that in later amendments and it is urgent. A second consequence is that we are conferring a lot more power on our regulators, one of which has been the subject of a flow of negative findings. This amendment is not intended to address the first consequence or to diminish in any way the constitutional position of Parliament regarding scrutiny—far from it: it is meant to address the second consequence. It also replaces some of the scrutiny of the EU which included three-yearly reviews of the European supervisory authorities.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the issue I want to highlight, as I did at earlier stages, is how to make regulators more accountable, given the well-established phenomenon of regulatory capture. Regulatory capture is where an industry regulator like the FCA and the other bodies mentioned in the amendment comes to be dominated by the industry that it is charged with regulating. The result is that the agency, which is meant to act in the public interest, works instead in ways that benefit the industry.
I do not think that there is any doubt that this happens, and the question is: what do we do about it? The important point to understand is that this does not happen because of inadequate, ineffective or corrupt individuals—rather, it happens because it is systemic. It is an institutional rather than an individual problem. There are various reasons for why it happens. First, a regulated industry has a keen and immediate interest in influencing the regulator, whereas customers are less motivated. They have normal lives to lead and they engage with the industry only for brief periods. However, participants in the industry are there all the time. Secondly, industries tend to devote large budgets to influencing the regulator, which inevitably has an impact. Lastly, there is the aspect of the whole industry community. People tend to move from the regulator to the industry and back to the regulator. That is bound to have some impact on the personal relationships that are established.
There is therefore no question that the phenomenon exists. How bad it gets and what we do about it is what we need to address. The first step is to acknowledge the problem and to recognise and address the challenge. The next step is to make the regulators as accountable as possible, which poses the question: who regulates the regulators? There are many ways to do that but we have before us in Amendment 2 a proposal for a periodic, independent review of the regulators.
What I have in mind is something akin to a school inspection, which does not happen because a school has demonstrated problems but is just part and parcel of a regular process that focuses the minds of all those involved. At the moment, regulating the regulators is effectively left to the Government whenever they care to turn their minds to the issue. The problem is that Governments have many other things to think about and the result is that addressing the problem tends to happen only after it has arisen. The public become aware that there is some deficiency in the regulator and therefore action has to be taken. How much better it would be to pose questions as to how the system can be improved before we encounter the problems. That happens only under a regular, independent review, as proposed under the terms of the amendment.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken on the Bill on Report and I draw the attention of the House to my interests as set out in the register—in particular, shares that I hold in listed financial services companies.
I have considerable sympathy for the amendment because the financial regulators are not very accountable. At the moment, there are set-piece appearances before the Treasury Select Committee in the other place and occasional appearances before committees of your Lordships’ House but these do not amount to a systematic and comprehensive examination. The Government often rely on the fact that annual reports are laid before Parliament but the annual reports of regulators get no more attention paid to them than the annual reports of companies. With rare exceptions, they provide few insights of value. By their very nature, annual reports accentuate the positive and shy away from the negative.
The problem of the accountability of regulators is not confined to financial services regulators. I could say much the same about Ofcom, Ofgem and other regulators, but we cannot solve the problems of the world in this Bill. The accountability of the PRA and the FCA is covered in the future regulatory framework, the consultation that has recently been completed. We discussed this a little on our first day in Committee and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will provide some information on the next steps when he responds to the amendment. The consultation closed over a month ago and the Treasury must have some idea on what it will be doing next and when.
If the outcome of that review, so far as accountability is concerned, is a well-developed form of parliamentary scrutiny, either jointly between both Houses of Parliament or within each House, the need for an independent review clause such as that contained in Amendment 2 would recede. Parliamentary committees can look at issues in depth but only if they are properly focused and well resourced. On that basis, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, might want to await the legislation implementing the outcome of that review rather than tackle the issue in this legislation, because action could be set in a broader, more holistic context regarding how the regulators will operate overall in due course.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, wishes to pursue her amendment—I thought I heard her say that it was more of a probing amendment for today—it would be wise to look again at its drafting because it calls for one review covering four regulators, but they are all different in what they do and how they do it. I am not convinced that there would be sufficient focus if one review tried to cover all the regulators—the two major ones and the two smaller units with regulatory responsibilities, one in the Bank of England and the other being the Payment Systems Regulator in the FCA.
In addition, I, like the ABI, wonder whether a review every two or three years is too frequent for the kind of in-depth review that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has in mind. A rolling series of reviews, perhaps carried out over five years but concentrating on individual regulators, would provide more information of value to those seeking to hold them to account. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has the right ideas in the amendment, although it may not be right for this Bill.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to support Amendment 2. Throughout the earlier stages of the Bill, a number of noble Lords have drawn attention to the failures of financial regulators. Essentially, it was argued that they are captured by the finance industry and therefore advance its interests. They are too slow to protect people from malpractices. Over the years, numerous financial products have been fraudulently sold, including pensions, endowment mortgages, precipice bonds, split capital investment trusts, interest rate swaps, payment protection insurance and much more. The names of the products change from the aforementioned to mini-bonds and supply chain finance, but the basic problems are still the same and the regulators have failed to secure positive change in the culture of financial services enterprises.
During debates, Ministers have emphasised the tax contribution of the finance industry but have been silent on the costs imposed by that industry on society. Scholarly research shows that between 1995 and 2015 the oversized and scandal-ridden finance industry made a negative contribution of £4,500 billion to the UK economy, equivalent to around £67,500 for every woman, man and child in the UK. Of the £4,500 billion, £2,700 billion is accounted for by misallocation, whereby resources, skills and investments are diverted away from productive non-financial activities to the financial sector. The other £1,800 billion arises from the 2007-08 banking crisis that ushered in never-ending austerity. The economy and most people are yet to recover from that. That £4,500 billion is a massive cost and we simply cannot afford it. The status quo is not tenable and it is too expensive. The cost of the financial curse for the UK cannot be reduced by carrying on the regulatory business as usual, which is what the Government seemed to indicate in Committee.
Our regulators need to be effective and proactive but they seem to neglect their duty to the people. This is well documented in the reports on London Capital & Finance and the Connaught Income Fund. The FCA knew that mini-bonds were a problem but was slow to act at London Capital & Finance, and the same pattern has now been repeated at Blackmore Bond. The FCA does not welcome public scrutiny. Just look at the excuses it concocted to conceal the report on frauds at HBOS. The saga is still not resolved and same goes for frauds at RBS.
It is well documented that thousands of people are trapped in the £3.7 billion collapse of Woodford Investment Management. The Woodford Equity Income Fund was first authorised by the FCA in 2014. In 2015, the FCA was informed about the fund’s precarious existence as it was investing excessively in unlisted securities that affected its liquidity, but the FCA ignored the information until at least 2017.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Bowles has already indicated that she does not intend to call a Division on this amendment, which I think is right. However, this is probably one of the most important amendments that we have discussed under the umbrella of the Bill. It opens up a new area to consider: how we make our regulators accountable and whether the committee system and traditional structures of Parliament can do the whole job or whether support is needed from some additional bodies. What the noble Lord, Lord Davies, called an outside pair of eyes on this issue could be extremely useful to Parliament by bringing a particular expertise. There could be periodic reviews, looking, for example, not at the decisions made by the regulator but at its capacity and mode of operation—those core issues which determine whether a regulator is effective. The noble Lord compared it to a visit from Ofsted, which is probably a little light-touch and simple but it takes the conversation in the right direction.
I have a strong suspicion that three or four years from now, we will be back to this discussion and looking much at an independent arrangement to look at our various regulators in order to provide information when appropriate to Parliament, so that it can get on with the areas of scrutiny in which it has most capacity, which is to ensure that the rules fit with the mandate that Parliament has given it in primary legislation. This is an extremely important area with some very interesting thinking.
I hope that the Treasury takes note. It would be lovely if it was picked up in the financial framework review, but that might be hoping for too much. That review has gone on a very limited and very traditional route. It would be good to challenge it with some new thinking, and to open its process to break through and work out how effective accountability can be put in place. This affects our fundamental economy and the capacity of a Government to deliver on public services, so the consequences are significant. Real attention paid to this area would be exceedingly welcome.
I will not pick up the other scrutiny issues because we will deal with those on the second day on Report. I will discuss some of the letters we have had from the regulators then. However, I want to put down a marker that this is an area and a thought process that must be taken seriously. I hope that the Government see that as an opportunity.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, I was tempted to start my speech with the famous quotation from Juvenal, “Who guards the guardians?”. But, given the strictures by the Leader of another place against speaking in foreign languages—although he was referring to Welsh—I will instead begin with a different quotation, from the late Lord Keynes. In the introduction to The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, he says:
“It is astonishing what foolish things one can temporarily believe if one thinks too long alone, particularly in economics.”
Well, we have certainly had many examples of regulators believing foolish things. The sorry history of the regulatory response to the role of credit derivatives in the expansion of credit in the run-up to the financial crisis of 2007 to 2009 is a clear example of the folly of thinking alone. Hence, a periodic review of the thinking of regulators—whether the prudential regulator or the conduct of business regulator—would certainly be worthwhile; it would be a useful challenge to groupthink.
However, this particular aspect is not best achieved by three independent persons, because there would be a grave temptation to appoint three expert regulators—just the sort of people who would think in the same way. However, they would, no doubt, come up with recommendations that deal with the operational objectives in this amendment, so I see the review activity as falling into two parts: the operational assessment; and the core policy issues, about which I would have less confidence in the approach of the three independent persons. Peer reviews are all very well, but I assure you that any academic economist will tell you that they not only tend to embody the status quo but often stifle innovation and can perpetuate error.
That is why I and others in the House have argued that the intention of the amendment with respect to policy would be best met by a parliamentary scrutiny committee. It is the nature of parliamentarians to be sceptical, to pose without embarrassment the naive question, to entertain the views of mavericks and free-thinkers, and to relate the performance of any organisation to its statutory objectives—after all, they are responsible for the statutes. So we have two tasks before us: a review, as proposed in the amendment, which would be a valuable check and assessment of operational matters; and the review of policy and thinking, which could be the regular component of the work programme of a scrutiny committee.
But first, of course, we need the acknowledgement from Her Majesty’s Government that they would support the foundation of such a scrutiny committee, giving it appropriate powers to work with the regulators in an effective and constructive manner and to commission regular reviews of policy issues of the sort sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. We will discuss this matter later; so much hangs on the issue of the general scrutiny of the activities of regulators, voiced by Members on all sides of the House, that we will certainly return to this matter later in consideration of the Bill.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has helpfully explained, the amendment seeks to introduce a statutory obligation for the Treasury to launch an independent review of the financial services regulators every two or three years, and sets out the topics that such a review would need to cover.
I will begin by saying that I absolutely understand where the noble Baroness is coming from in tabling the amendment; indeed, having yesterday reread the two very eloquent speeches she made on the subject in Grand Committee, and having listened today to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, my mind, like that of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, also turned to the Roman poet Juvenal’s famous question. The noble Baroness is concerned about the need for oversight of those who oversee, and I entirely appreciate her reasons for wanting reassurance on that issue. However, where she and I differ is over her contention—express or implicit—that there is currently a deficiency of mechanisms to provide meaningful oversight of the regulators and to ensure that they are working effectively. I set out a number of these mechanisms in Grand Committee; they include tools both for examining detailed operational or policy matters and for scrutinising more general, overarching issues. This I think was part of the distinction made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so we will go straight back to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, for the purposes of Report, I must remind the House of my interests in the register, which I omitted to do when I first spoke today.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this interesting debate. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, reminded us of the effects of regulatory capture and the way in which that is just something that is endemic within the system, not least because of the overwhelming volume of meetings that take place and contacts that are made with the industries, both in policy terms and as they are regulated. As my noble friend Lady Kramer observed, he drew a slight parallel with Ofsted—there is a point that somebody from outside has to come in. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that at the moment this does not seem to be something to which the Government are turning their minds often enough, because otherwise we would not keep having to have reviews about failure.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for thinking that I got the right ideas. Some of my drafting might have been a bit adrift; I meant that each regulator had its own review and certainly the concept of a rolling review was what I would have had in mind. I agree with her that set pieces make it difficult to get into the systematic operational review that lies at the heart of my amendment, even if I, perhaps accidentally, strayed too widely. I also agree that annual reports concentrate on the good. Responses to the report and parliamentary engagement with the report are, in fact, intended to be via the Treasury, but that indirect link is not satisfactory as far as Parliament is concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, reminded us of the cost of failures in regulations. He asked whether, because of the history and where we are at, it can be business as usual. We have had examples of the FCA making excuses for slowness and failures. As the Minister said, there is a new CEO, whom I know extremely well. He made some good points when he appeared before the Treasury Select Committee about having brought in some outside people to bolster the system, using exactly what I said is the understood way of doing things in business: you need outside eyes. He has done his best in that sense by bringing some fresh blood into the FCA.
When it comes to parliamentary reports, as the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, reminded us, the one about Carillion, for example, did not trigger action. If they do not trigger action, something is missing. My noble friend Lady Kramer explained exactly where I think we are. I am testing the water and exploring; I am asking whether our traditional roles are sufficient. We will have a little time to see. Like my noble friend, I think that we will be back here in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, put his finger on the distinctions between operational and policy and what would belong with Parliament and what would belong with independent review. That is a useful distinction, which, going forward with these ideas, I can take to heart.
The Minister again said that there is plenty of opportunity for reviews to be done. The point is that they are not being done; they are only being done in default. They are not being done in a systematic way that is quality controlled. I do not disagree that there might be, within legislation, sufficient scope to do some that are more like quality control. If the Minister is saying, “Well, right, we will have a look to see whether that can be done,” I might agree. At the moment, however, there is a hole. The Minister says that it might be expensive but, as the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, pointed out, it is very expensive on the industry that has to cough up compensation if needed and if it comes from the central compensation funds. When things go wrong, it is expensive and probably more expensive than if one had done the proper quality-control monitoring.
The IMF and the Basel reviews are not UK-based reviews and are not debated in the public forum within the UK. They are also reviews done by regulators of regulators, which is absolutely one of the things that I am trying to get away from. Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell: yes, they have to be skilled people but, no, they jolly well should not be regulators or recent regulators, and maybe not even former regulators, because otherwise you do not get away from the groupthink. I am sorry, but IMF and Basel are part of the groupthink.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 3. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 3
Lord Oates
“Review of capital adequacy requirements risk weights
(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed the Prudential Regulation Authority must complete a review of the risk weighting applied to investments in—(a) existing fossil fuel exploitation and production, and(b) new fossil fuel exploration, exploitation and production.(2) In conducting this review, the Prudential Regulation Authority must have regard to—(a) the need to prevent the misallocation of investment to global warming accelerating activities as a result of artificially low risk weights; (b) the full implications of climate change for the risk of investments including physical climate risks, transitional climate risks and climate liability risks;(c) the likelihood of assets becoming wholly or partially stranded before the end of their normal exploitation cycle;(d) the impact of global warming accelerating activities on financial stability, in particular as a result of climate change related disruption of the economy; and(e) the advice of the Climate Change Committee.(3) The Treasury must lay before Parliament the outcome of this review within one month of the completion of the review.”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to place a requirement on the PRA to review the adequacy of risk weights applied to fossil fuel exposures in capital requirements having regard to the implications of climate change.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the chairman of the advisory committee of Weber Shandwick UK. Amendment 3 is in my name and the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Altmann. I thank all the organisations who provided me with briefing, in particular Finance Watch for its helpful advice and recommendations.
Before I speak to Amendment 3, I also want to express support for other amendments in this group, particularly Amendments 22 and 23 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which deal respectively with climate risk reporting and the appointment of a senior FCA manager responsible for climate change. I have been pleased to put my name to both.
In Committee we had an excellent and productive debate about the impact of climate risk on the financial system and the wider economy. I am grateful to the Minister for his careful consideration of the arguments, and to noble friends and colleagues across the House for the excellent cross-party co-operation we have achieved on these issues. I thank the Minister for listening to the arguments on the need for the FCA and PRA to have regard to the UK’s 2050 net zero obligations and for introducing government amendments to achieve this end. That is a great step forward.
If we are effectively to respond to the existential threat climate change poses to our financial system—indeed, to our whole human society—finance will be critical in allocating the huge amounts of capital required to decarbonise the global economy. Today, however, finance is the principal enabler of climate change by financing the global warming-accelerating activities of the fossil fuel industries at an artificially low cost as a result of the inadequate pricing of climate risk within the financial system.
As long as capital adequacy risk weights are inconsistently applied within the capital requirement rules so that fossil fuel activities are under-risked, capital will flow towards them because the equity that has to be held on the bank’s balance sheet will be less than it should be and the return on equity consequently better than it should be. As a result, capital which could be better employed in the new technologies we will need to counter climate change will continue to be misallocated to the old industries that drive it.
Amendment 3 attempts to address this problem by requiring the PRA to complete a review of capital adequacy risk weightings in relation to existing and new fossil fuel investments within six months of the Bill being passed. That review would aim to ensure that risk weights for fossil fuel investments adequately take into account the impact of global warming-accelerating activities on financial stability, in particular as a result of climate change-related disruption to the economy.
This amendment is an attempt to meet the concerns of the Minister over my more direct amendment in Committee, which called for specific risk weights to be applied to fossil fuel investments in line with the existing capital adequacy rules of the capital requirement regulations, or CRR. The amendment in Committee required the application of a 150% risk weight to existing fossil fuel investment, in line with Article 128 of the CRR. That requires such a risk weight to be applied to
“items associated with particular high risk”,
for example, hedge funds or investments in immovable property.
It is clearly hard to argue that fossil fuel investments are less risky than either immovable property or hedge funds investments, given the likelihood of fossil fuel assets becoming partially or wholly stranded. The logic of CRR is, therefore, that such investments must be included under Article 128. That they are not indicates that the regulatory system is struggling to respond to the complex and interrelated risks posed by climate change to the financial system.
The original amendment also proposed that, for new fossil exploration and production, the risk weight should be applied such that investment in these activities would have to be backed by 100% equity on the lender’s balance sheet. Such a risk weight is merited by the fact that new fossil fuel investments are likely to become entirely stranded and that exploitation of new fossil fuel investments would push us far beyond the level of two degrees of warming that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns us would have enormous and unpredictable consequences for human society, not to mention the banks and the financial system as a whole. It is right in those circumstances that the resulting loss of capital should be effectively ring-fenced so that the problem is confined to the bank equity holders and not allowed to spread to depositors and the wider financial system—adding a financial crisis to a climate crisis.
It is fair to say that the Minister and a minority of other Peers were resistant to the direct approach to risk weights I proposed. The Minister was concerned, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that we were seeking to use prudential regulation to achieve policy objectives that they felt were better pursued elsewhere. The noble Baroness stressed that the system of prudential regulation should be about the
“risk to the capital of the banks and the resilience of the financial system as whole.”—[Official Report, 1/3/21; col. GC 244.]
To this, I can say only that I agree; that is the precise purpose of the amendments that my noble friends and colleagues across the House and I have been pursuing.
Last week, the deputy governor for prudential regulation and CEO of the PRA Sam Woods stated in a speech to the Association of British Insurers that
“it is a fundamental pillar of the prudential regime that it be risk-based: disregarding the risk in individual investments is a recipe for an under-capitalized financial system that would not be a robust or sustainable source of investment.”
I agree with the deputy governor, just as I agree with the Minister. My only difficulty is that the disregarding of risk in individual investments, which the deputy governor warns us against, is exactly what is happening in respect of fossil fuel investment because prudential regulation has not worked out how to adequately assess the impacts of climate change on the financial system.
The scale of the problem was highlighted by Mark Carney in his “Breaking the Tragedy of the Horizon” speech some years ago. He said:
“Take, for example, the IPCC’s estimate of a carbon budget that would likely limit global temperature rises to 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels. That budget amounts to between 1/5th and 1/3rd world’s proven reserves of oil, gas and coal. If that estimate is even approximately correct it would render the vast majority of reserves “stranded”—oil, gas and coal that will be literally unburnable without expensive carbon capture technology, which itself alters fossil fuel economics. The exposure of UK investors, including insurance companies, to these shifts is potentially huge.”
Is anyone seriously suggesting that these risks are currently being properly taken into account in the capital adequacy risk weights? If they were, it is inconceivable that existing fossil fuel investments would not be ranked under Article 128 of CRR as items associated with particular high risk. Of course, investments in new fossil fuel exploitation pose not only micro-prudential risks to banks arising from stranded assets, but the huge macro-prudential risks due to the acceleration of climate change which they will cause.
The Minister sought to assure us in the debate in Committee that the regulators have these matters under control. He prayed in aid, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the climate scenario tests that the Bank will be conducting later in the year. These are no doubt worthwhile exercises and it is good to see that the Bank is setting the international pace. But these scenario tests will not fix the issue.
Although the Governor of the Bank implicitly recognises the role that capital adequacy requirements need to play in addressing climate-associated risks when he says that supervisory expectations will require firms to assess how climate risks could impact their businesses and to review whether additional capital needs to be held against this, he also states that, in relation to climate scenario tests, the Bank will not use them to size firms’ capital buffers. The reason the Bank is reluctant to do so is the difficulty of using such tests to measure hard-to-quantify future risk. So we have a dangerous scenario when regulators say that they cannot act until they can adequately measure risk, and on the other hand that the risk is too difficult to measure. The route through this is to apply the existing capital adequacy risk weights in an internally consistent manner, as proposed by the amendment that we put at Committee.
Although I stand by that position because I believe it is the only logically coherent and feasible way of dealing with risk in respect of fossil fuel activities, I have listened to the Minister’s arguments and those of the noble Baroness, and consequently I have put forward this revised amendment to require the PRA instead to conduct a review of the issue of risk weights and climate change and report back to the House. This will provide an opportunity to consider carefully the issues raised and also to inform the debate on risk weights at international level. I hope the Minister will see merit in this proposal.
I made it clear in Committee, and I stress again on Report, that neither my amendment then, nor the revised version before your Lordships today, is driven by any animus against the fossil fuel industries—quite the contrary. I have a huge respect for the people working in those industries and a huge determination that there should be a just transition for those employees as we decarbonise our economy. We will be able to achieve that much more easily if the financial system shepherds an orderly transition away from fossil fuel industries through the appropriate application of risk in the system.
I understand the reluctance of the Government to intervene in prudential regulation, but Ministers cannot abdicate responsibility. They must not cling to the idea that the technicians have got this under control, because it is an illusion—and it is an illusion that will have disastrous consequences if it is not corrected. When the system of prudential regulation is so evidently failing in its primary task of managing and controlling risk in the financial system, at least in respect of climate risks, there is an obligation to act. So I am hopeful that, having listened to the arguments during the debate, the Minister will accept the case for the review and provide sufficient assurance that this will be taken forward in a timely manner. However, if he is not able to do so, I give notice of my intention to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as co-chair of Peers for the Planet. I have Amendments 22 and 23 in this group and will speak also to the government amendments and Amendment 44, from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I have added my name to Amendment 3, to which the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has just spoken so powerfully.
Before I speak to any of the amendments, I will thank colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones, Lady Altmann and Lady Bennett, who have added their names to my amendments. I thank very particularly the Minister and his team for their very approachable actions in relation to discussions since Committee. They have been engaged in a sensitive and constructive way, and the noble Earl, as we have come to expect, has always been extremely courteous, endlessly patient and generous with his time. I think we have made real progress because of that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who is taking such a brilliant lead on these issues in your Lordships’ House. I thank her for her concentration on the biodiversity crisis as well as the climate emergency. Reflecting on her comments, I too hope that this is the last time it will be up to this House to add the missing element of climate to a financial Bill. Maybe for biodiversity we can proceed even faster. I too welcome the news about the FCA appointments—although putting that into the Bill, as Amendment 23 would do, would be better, because it would provide a statutory guarantee that such an appointment would continue.
I shall speak to Amendments 3, 22, 23 and 44. Amendment 44 is in my name, and Amendment 3 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and others. Amendments 22 and 23, to which I have attached my name, are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I shall speak to Amendments 3, 22 and 23 together.
I had cause this morning to reflect back on the work of your Lordships’ house, by a similarly small and dedicated band, on the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill. At that team’s heart was the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, author of the recent review often referred to by her name, but actually entitled First Do No Harm. Would that we could see the financial sector adopting that principle. Instead, it continues to pump funds into destroying the planet at breakneck speed.
An independent report by a coalition of NGOs, out this morning, shows that the world’s biggest 60 banks have provided $3.8 trillion-worth of financing for fossil fuel companies since the Paris climate deal in 2015. In our home sector, UK bank Barclays provides the most fossil fuel financing of all European banks—and the finance provided in 2020 was more than in 2016 or 2017.
The report notes that a commitment to be net zero by 2050 has been made by 17 of the 60 banks, but the report describes the pledges as “dangerously weak, half-baked, or vague”. It is clear that self-regulation—however much the Government may be wedded ideologically to the idea—has not worked. And we are in an emergency: we cannot wait.
Johan Frijns, at BankTrack, part of the coalition behind the report, says:
“there exists no pathway towards this laudable goal”—
net zero—
“that does not require dealing with bank finance for the fossil fuel industry right here and now.”
These amendments do not go that far, but they least set us on the right track—a track to transparency that does not require little-funded NGOs to dig well-buried data out of dark corners.
None the less, as others have noted, we have made some progress since Committee stage, and I welcome the government amendments in this group, which reverse the Government’s claim, made to me in Committee, that we did not need a reference to the climate emergency in the Bill. This will be, I believe, after the Pension Schemes Act, the second financial Bill to start to acknowledge the truth of doughnut economics—that the economy, and all human life, has to live within planetary limits.
That brings me to my Amendment 44, which addresses biodiversity. It is an addition to the government amendment requiring the FCA to “have regard to” the carbon target for 2050 when making Part 9C rules. My amendment simply adds another “with regard to”—in this case to the UK commitments under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.
I referred to planetary limits. We are not yet focused nearly enough on the fact that the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, at 417 parts per million today, is only one way in which we are outside the doughnut of sustainability. There is also the collapse of the natural world, as the globe’s Governments have acknowledged with the Convention on Biological Diversity, to which the UK is of course a signatory.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness and to contribute to this debate. I very much welcome the amendments in the name of the Minister, my noble friend Lord Howe, in this group, particularly Amendments 43, 46 and 47 onwards, requiring the FCA to have regard to the carbon target for 2050 when making part 9C rules, as set out.
I always listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Oates, says—we entered the House on the same day and are of the same vintage, so to speak—but I welcome the fact that the Government recognise the risks arising from climate change. The Minister addressed the issue of stranded assets, an issue on which I share his concern, and the transition plan out of them. I think that was addressed in Committee in so far as my noble friend said then that
“the point of the Bill is to support a flexible regulatory system that can respond to changing circumstances and developments as they arise.”— [Official Report, 1/3/21; col. 258GC.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, spoke about those technologies and forms of energy that can do harm. I am personally concerned that in Amendments 3, 22, 23 and 44, spoken to so eloquently by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Baroness Bennett, the focus is still very much on moving at the earliest possible opportunity and timetable away from fossil fuels. What worries me increasingly is our fixation on renewables, which on the face of it seem to be performing extremely well both onshore and offshore.
We on the EU Environment Sub-Committee have just completed our last piece of work, looking at the ecology of the North Sea. It is apparent from the evidence that we took that there is a lack of research on the impact of renewable energy offshore facilities on North Sea ecology, particularly marine life—dolphins, porpoises and whales—bird life and the whole sea biodiversity. A plea was made that the cumulative impact should be considered and that we should assess and value all the natural capital, not just the ability to create wind but what we are losing. In particular, it was put to us that we should consider the impact of these renewables, particularly offshore wind, on other users, such as, as in this case, fisheries and shipping.
Mention has also been made of the work going on in the Basel framework. I hope the Minister will give us an update on that. I am concerned that some of the amendments here, particularly Amendment 3, but others as well, may pre-empt and not have regard to the international work that will help us to understand how climate risk should be considered through the Basel framework and working with our international partners.
I pay very close regard to what those such as Mark Carney and the current deputy governor of the Bank of England say, but equally I was struck by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, in the debate on the Budget Statement, where he expressed concern about the new remit requiring the Bank of England to
“reflect the importance of environmental sustainability and the transition to net zero”.—[Official Report, 12/3/21; col 1914.]
In the context of the Financial Services Bill we are seeking, as I understand it, to have a flexible regulatory system, as my noble friend explained, that will be able to respond to circumstances as they develop. I imagine that it is the role of the Government rather than the regulators to set the policy, but I stand to be corrected by my noble friend.
I welcome the opportunity to have this debate. When it comes to net zero, climate change and environmental sustainability, obviously there will be a move away from fossil fuels, but no one has yet explained to me how we are going to attempt to fulfil all our energy requirements in what will be virtually all electricity supplied to the market.
With those few remarks, I look forward to the Minister bringing together all the themes of this debate.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I thank the Minister for some movement on this issue. His courtesy throughout has been an example to all of us. I thank him for his correspondence on the issues that I raised in Committee, some of which I will return to later in my contribution.
I congratulate the noble Lords who moved amendments on climate risk in Committee, without which we would not be where we are today. The amendments were cogently argued and evidently persuasive, if only partially so, which is why a number of them have been brought back, albeit slightly amended, on Report.
I support Amendment 3 in the name of my noble friend Lord Oates and the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann, Lady Hayman and Lady Jones of Whitchurch. It makes a strong case, with support from across your Lordships’ House, for a PRA review of the risk weighting applied to investments in existing and new fossil fuel exploration, exploitation and production. Amendment 22, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, seeks to embed evaluation of climate-related financial risks, and consideration of the impact of such risks on the stability of the UK financial system, in the modus operandi of the FCA and the PRA. Amendment 23, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, provides for the appointment of a senior manager within the FCA with responsibility for climate change—and movement on this by the regulator, as she outlined in her earlier contribution, is welcome. Amendment 44, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, makes huge sense in the context of the recent Dasgupta review. I hope that the Minister will give it sympathetic consideration.
I need say no more about the content of these amendments, as I would only be repeating the excellent contributions of those who tabled them. Suffice to say that, if adopted, all three would send the right policy signals that the Government mean what they say when they speak of a climate emergency. Those signals are sorely needed because the signals presently being received by investors and, indeed, by all sectors of society, are confusing and misleading. We have a Government leading on ending the use of coal for power generation—the Powering Past Coal Alliance—who then toy with the idea of granting a licence to a new deep coal mine in Cumbria. The Government announced in December last year that they would end UK support for fossil-fuel projects overseas. Will the Minister say whether UK Export Finance’s support for the controversial east African crude oil pipeline—EACOP—which extends from Uganda to Tanzania, will be a done deal before the new March deadline just announced?
Just today, we have a garbled press release on supporting vulnerable communities in the north-east and Scotland, which will be affected by the transition away from fossil fuels. This is justified in the press release by an unexplained decrease in emissions by the oil and gas sector. These communities deserve better. In the same press release, we are told that this decrease in emissions will be achieved by a new regime to hand out new licences to explore for and exploit as yet undiscovered fields. I am confused. Can the Minister shed some light?
Is the Minister also able to shed any light on whether the Government will bring forward legislation to align the Oil and Gas Authority’s remit to our net-zero target, thus drawing a line under the current policy of maximising economic revenue, or MER? That might serve to remove some of the confusion. How can new licences be justified when extraction of the oil and gas in our existing fields will take us over our share of emissions under the Paris agreement? Surely the Government, in a climate emergency which they themselves declared, are not relying on reducing emissions via carbon capture, usage and storage, a technology which is unproven at scale?
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the NASA website tells us that 2020 was the hottest year since records began, while the World Meteorological Organization states that 2011-20 was the warmest decade on record. The warmest six years have all been since 2015—2016, 2019 and 2020 being the top three. The World Meteorological Organization’s secretary-general, Professor Taalas, said:
“It is remarkable that temperatures in 2020 were virtually on a par with 2016, when we saw one of the strongest El Niño warming events on record. This is a clear indication that the global signal from human-induced climate change is now as powerful as the force of nature.”
That is a chilling thought.
I will end with one last thought: temperature is just one of the indicators of climate change. The others are greenhouse gas concentrations, ocean heat content, ocean pH, global mean sea level, glacial mass, sea ice extent and extreme events. All are moving in the wrong direction. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a satisfactory commitment that climate risk in the financial sector will be satisfactorily legislated for. In the absence of such assurances, I will support amendments on the issue that are put to a Division.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, eloquently introduced Amendment 3. There was much discussion on this matter in Committee but I still consider that such a review would place too heavy a burden, and a disproportionate one at that, on the PRA. I thank my noble friend the Minister for the diligent manner in which he has responded to noble Lords’ concerns about raising the importance of climate-change issues in the list of factors to which our regulators must have regard in making rules.
The Government’s credentials as global leaders in the movement away from reliance on fossil fuels are well established and will, I hope, be further enhanced by the G7 meetings and the COP 26 conference later this year. However, this should be kept in perspective and balanced against the need for economic recovery and the needs of industry. There is no point in pricing what remains of our steel industry out of the market if the result would be an increase in imports from countries which have not adopted energy policies as green as ours, especially if the impact on global emissions is negligible.
When I first read my noble friend Earl Howe’s amendments I was puzzled, because it seemed that he was giving with one hand and taking away with the other. I look forward to his clarification of how Amendments 43, 46, 47 and 49 net off against each other.
I am loath to saddle the regulators with increased obligations which go beyond the practices that they have already adopted. The letter from Sam Woods makes it clear that climate change is already an important consideration in the PRA’s supervision and regulation of banks and insurers, under its existing statutory objectives. Similarly, the letter from Nikhil Rathi makes it clear that the FCA is committed to helping market participants manage the risks in moving to a low-carbon economy and supports the commitment to match, at least, the ambition of the EU sustainable finance action plan in the UK. Since the FCA has already decided to recruit a director with specific responsibility for ESG matters, I do not think that Amendment 23, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is necessary. The remit of the senior manager whom she suggests should be appointed would clash with that of the new director who is already in the process of being recruited.
Amendment 22, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, also goes too far and is too prescriptive. My noble friend the Minister was right when he said to the Committee, on 24 February, that
“it is important that we act carefully and rationally, consult appropriately with interested parties and therefore make progress in the right way.”
He was also right in stating that
“the changes the Bill enables serve to implement a number of vital reforms following the financial crisis. These reforms reinforce the safety and soundness of the UK financial system.”—[Official Report, 24/2/21; col. GC 224.]
Surely we should not amend the Bill in any way that might prevent us giving effect to updated prudential rules. I also agree that there is no evidence that greener means prudentially safer, at least not yet. Therefore, it is not clear that a regulator, whose primary objective is the safety and soundness of financial institutions, should be burdened with disproportionate climate obligations now, especially at a time when it is essential to maintain and enhance the competitiveness and attractiveness of the UK’s financial markets. With regard to individual regulators’ objectives and rule-making powers on climate change-related risks, the ABI recommends the need for holistic debate across stakeholders before adding new objectives to the remit of regulators, given the need to balance the various priorities. I believe that my noble friend’s amendments strike the right balance, and I will support them.
While I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that biodiversity is important, I believe she wants to go a step too far in her Amendment 44 in adding this to the FCA’s “have regard to.” There are countless other policies that could be added, but too many will muddy the waters and distract the FCA from its efficient operation in performing its core duties and objectives.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, these amendments, and this Bill, are crucial to the future of the United Kingdom. We have heard repeatedly in the arguments deployed of an interaction. There is the need for financial services to be successful and effective because they play such an important part in ensuring the well-being on which the rest of our society depends. That is beyond question. However, we know that they have implications, socially and beyond, for which they need regulation, and this has been well spelled out.
I shall focus on Amendments 3, 22, 23 and 44 in particular. Fossil fuels inevitably have considerable and extensive risks for the climate. There can be no argument about that. They have great implications in terms of climate change, and I am glad to see that Amendment 3 is grappling with this.
Amendment 22 deals with the point I have just made in that climate change poses risks to financial services. Therefore, it is essential to have the right arrangements in place to ensure that those risks are, if not eliminated, minimised.
Amendment 23 makes the point I have often felt strongly about in legislation: it is sometimes crucial to have a specific person carrying a specific responsibility for bringing together the various threads in the policy for which we are aiming and ensure their delivery. It is a good amendment.
I do not share the rather dismissive approach of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, to Amendment 44. My view is that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, deserves considerable commendation for having tabled this amendment. We have happily joined these UN conventions, and our diplomats have usually played a large part in bringing them about, but we sometimes lack the discipline to follow through with what they require of us. At this point in our consideration of the Bill, it is appropriate to talk about the convention and the undertakings we have thereby committed ourselves to on biodiversity. On that issue, I find myself dismayed by the position of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, because we are surrounded by a major crisis. The biodiversity of the world is in danger of collapse, and the consequences have direct implications for the survival of humanity itself. There is urgency about this situation.
In conclusion, I simply make this point: I said that we wanted the financial services sector to be successful and effective, because we recognise its indispensability, but we also must recognise that on climate change, we are long past the age of rhetorical language and theoretical commitment. We have to demonstrate that we have the leverage and the arrangements in place to ensure delivery; if we do not ensure delivery on the measures we want to see to protect the climate, we will be party to a cruise towards catastrophe for the global community. It is vital to have these disciplines, and these amendments spell out how we can bring those disciplines to bear.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak mainly to Amendments 3 and 23 in this group.
On Amendment 3, I should say I am not generally in favour of littering legislation with reviews, though I confess to having tabled a few amendments of that nature myself in the past. More substantively, I think this particular amendment as drafted is a waste of time.
I can predict the outcome of the review if this amendment is passed. The PRA will find that banks do not hold any significant “investments”—the wording used in the amendment—in fossil fuel assets, whether linked to existing exploitation and production or to new exploration. So all the things mentioned in proposed subsection (2) of the amendment will be irrelevant.
Risk weighting applies to the assets that banks hold. Banks’ assets will largely be loans of various kinds. Banks do not normally invest in physical assets used by other companies, nor do they invest in shares in the companies that own the assets. Banking is fundamentally about lending and not investing.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, cited the recent speech by the deputy governor talking about prudential regulation being risk-based, which indeed it is, but he failed to understand that he was talking to insurers at the time. They do have investments. This is a fundamental difference between banks and insurers—they have completely different balance sheets.
As I said in Committee, most borrowing by oil and gas companies will be generic—for example, by way of bond issuance or commercial paper—and by one of the companies in a group. It will not be hypothecated to individual assets or groups of assets. Money is fungible and cannot be linked to any specific use. Bank balance sheets might have some leasing arrangements that might be caught by this amendment, but my main point is that the amendment is fundamentally aimed at the wrong target and, therefore, amounts to not much more than virtue signalling.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Noakes. In essence, since we are on Report on a Financial Services Bill, these amendments can, I hope, be rightly summed up as, “What point profit if no planet to spend it on?” But, as the term “global warming” clearly sets out, it is collectively a global issue, not a national one. In this context, I give more than a nod towards our involvement with the whole Basel process and the letter from Mr Sam Woods on this issue.
I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend the Minister. They strike the right balance on the need for transition—not in any sense slow or fast, but a transition—to get to where we need to get to across financial services and the wider economy. As noble Lords commented, there is no benefit—quite the opposite—in taking an approach to a particular industry in a particular region of United Kingdom only to have a more catastrophic climate impact by having to shore up resource from other parts of the globe.
In short, the PRA has a role to play, as do all elements in the financial services sector. More can probably be done on the use of new technologies and the measurement of how funds and various assets are performing in this sense. That is certainly in our grasp; it is not a matter for this group of amendments, but it could well provide much of the solution, and certainly the clarity and accountability that would come through in the course of business.
I fundamentally agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes’s commentary on how large corporates go about their funding—[Connection lost.]
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
We appear to have lost contact with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. Perhaps we should move on to the next contributor, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 3, moved so excellently by the noble Lord, Lord Oates. I congratulate him on his work on the issues relevant to this group of amendments.
I also commend my noble friend the Minister and his department for listening to the concerns expressed in Committee and for laying his own amendments to the Bill, which previously made no mention of climate change at all. I believe that the Government are committed to making a real difference on climate change and environmental issues, and have recognised the dangers that our precious planet faces due to climate change and biodiversity risks, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned and as is in her amendment. I welcome the Government’s Amendments 43, 46, 47 and 49, and hope that the issue of climate risk will continue to move up the agenda in financial services.
I have enormous respect for my noble friend Lady Noakes and her experience in banking. She makes relevant distinctions between assets held by insurance companies, regulated by the FCA, which hold investments directly in fossil fuel or environmentally damaging firms and activities, whereas banks’ main assets are loans rather than more direct investments. Their balance sheets, as she noted, have some leasing, but, should the worst predictions of climate catastrophe materialise in a shorter timeframe than currently anticipated, there could be unexpected defaults on a number of the loans on the loan books, which also needs to be considered, I would hope, in terms of risk weightings.
In Committee, I supported the noble Lord, Lord Oates, in seeking to update the existing capital risk weightings to reflect climate change risk. Having listened carefully to the Committee’s arguments, he has taken care to adjust his amendment for Report. As we have all discussed in this group, climate change is now recognised widely as posing a significant risk to the entire global financial system and, in fact, to our expected and hoped-for way of life. Current central bank policy risks reinforcing a carbon lock-in through a systemic bias to fossil fuel investments—indeed, insurance arrangements and pension funds also have significant investments in this area. I believe we need a twin-track approach that both reports on and quantifies climate-related financial risks and, at the same time, amends prudential risk tools to reflect the risk of loss or stranding in relation to fossil fuel investments or, indeed, loan books.
Such an approach would reflect the urgency of the challenge we face and, as Andrew Bailey said in a speech last year:
“Investments that look safe on a backward look may be existentially risky given climate risks.”
The Minister’s response in Committee was that the proposed amendments would require the PRA to set punitively high risk weights against exposure to existing and new fossil fuel production and exploitation, and that these risk weights would, in effect, make it more expensive to finance such activities and thereby make them less attractive. Loans would be more expensive, potentially, to companies involved in this area. Is this not the very point that we should be seeking to achieve—to reflect the risks of carbon-intensive investments quantitatively, through higher risk weightings, and potentially through the issuing of loans to such companies?
Amendment 3 recognises the Government’s concerns and now proposes only that the PRA carry out a review of the current risk weightings applied to existing and new fossil fuel activities. In this regard, such a review may indeed confirm what my noble friend Lady Noakes suggested would be the outcome but, without such a review, I feel that we will not necessarily be taking this sufficiently seriously. I hope my noble friend can agree that this is a reasonable and prudent way to recognise the urgency of the climate change challenges we face, and that it would provide evidence to inform any necessary future changes to existing prudential rules around capital weightings, should that be found to be required.
In addition, two reports have just been published highlighting the systemic nature of climate risks. The LSE’s Grantham Research Institute report—I declare an interest as a visiting professor—Net-Zero Central Banking stated:
“Central banks and supervisors will need to take a systemic perspective, addressing both micro- and macroprudential risks over a much longer time horizon than they do now, and work to ensure that financial flows become aligned with net-zero.”
Policy Exchange’s report Capital Shift recently stated:
“Whereas international banking codes require banks to include emerging risks such as cybersecurity in capital adequacy compliance … climate change barely features.”
It recommended:
“Central banks and supervisors should introduce higher capital charges for assets at greater risk from climate and nature-related financial risks.”
I hope my noble friend the Minister can provide assurances that an urgent review of this vital area is possible and will be considered.
I speak briefly in support of the aims of Amendment 22 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on climate-related financial risk reporting. I commend her for her work in this area and declare a further interest as a member of the Peers for the Planet group, which she so ably leads. Amendment 22 would require adjustments to reflect the systemic risk in the whole financial system. I hope my noble friend will commit to a future consultation, at least, on the FCA and PRA objectives having regard to net zero targets.
Finally, I have added my name to Amendment 23, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, whose work on environmental protection has been so powerful. I congratulate the new chief executive of the FCA, Nikhil Rathi, on the latest announcement that he is recruiting a senior role focused specifically on environmental and other ESG matters, so I suspect that this amendment may no longer be required.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we have not as yet been able to restore contact with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. Should he reappear before the Minister speaks, I will try to call him, but for the time being he is not with us, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will follow my practice of trying to be brief and selective on Report. We have had absolutely brilliant speeches and I do not intend to repeat them.
Perhaps I can start by being helpful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and I speak as a fairly weather-worn commercial banker who dealt extensively with loans and risk. She will understand, therefore, that the PRA, as the regulator, in dealing with capital adequacy issues, looks at the loans that sit as assets on the bank’s books, but of course it does not stop there. It looks through that to the operational activities—to the activities and investment of the company to which the loan is made. That is why the terminology “investment” pins exactly what this amendment is intended to do, which is to make sure that the PRA does that look-through to investment. I do not think that any member of the PRA would have the slightest difficulty in understanding what this amendment is guiding them to carry out. They would see that it has genuine precision in it. I do not have a problem with the wording; the wording says what it should, it says what it means and it says what the PRA would understand and follow through.
Very briefly, I thank the Minister for the two “have regard” amendments that he has embedded in this group. To “have regard” to the climate change target of 2050 is a step forward, but we have to recognise that it is very light-touch and will not scare the horses. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, captured that rather well when she said that the two “have regard” amendments will do no harm. I do not think they change the landscape, but they give a little hint of a change in direction and I welcome that change in direction.
Like others, I am very frustrated that we have a PRA that is going to do stress tests to test the sufficiency of banks’ capital buffers to deal with the financial instability caused by climate change, but then seems to have taken almost the equivalent of a vow of passivity and will not then follow through and implement the consequential adjustments to capital adequacy ratios that would come from that exploration and examination of the buffers. I really do not understand going through the process and then saying, “But we will not learn from or implement the consequences of that work”.
I sometimes think, as I listen to the speeches, that there is a sense that this requirement to look at capital adequacy ratios is somehow novel or revolutionary. I sit on the Economic Affairs Committee and last week, we were privileged to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Turner of Ecchinswell. I hope I have pronounced that correctly. We were looking at quantitative easing issues and therefore it was a discussion of central banks, but the issue of climate change came up. I thought what he said was quite helpful in understanding how normalised the approach of challenging this issue through capital adequacy ratios is now becoming. He said that any role of central banks in relation to climate change is very much secondary to the fiscal and regulatory authorities—the same issue that I think was raised with reference to quotes from the noble Lord, Lord King—but that is an important statement. It is secondary to the fiscal and regulatory authorities because, of course, the relevant regulatory authority is the PRA. He went on to give an illustration by referring to coal:
“If banks go on lending to coal companies, they may end up with stranded assets on which they will make a loss. That will be bad for their capital ratio. I think that it is reasonable for the PRA to set higher capital ratios for anybody who is still lending to coal.”
I do not want to suggest that he was willing to go further than coal, but he was using it as an illustration. I think most of this House would very happily accept that that language needs to be extended across the full range of fossil fuels, certainly in requiring the PRA to do a review. So, I wanted to underscore that this is a normalised approach; this is where we will go, and where we will end up. Given that we have described climate change, absolutely correctly, as an emergency, a delay in getting to that appropriate application of capital adequacy is really serious.
I wanted to pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—that most loans are short or medium term. They are, but they are supporting longer-term projects. Of course, the duration of financing the project itself—the project they enable, the project they empower, the project they drive—has a much longer-term application. So, the fact that the loan itself is short term does not mean that it can be set aside as though it had no longer-term implications. It is merely the first step in an ongoing process, and once the process is started it is almost impossible to stop. Loans might be short term because people think they might get better terms and conditions or pricing in the future. The short-term issue is not applicable here; the urgency issue is.
We know that we face an emergency and that how we act in the future will have to be more draconian and dramatic, and have far greater collateral damage, than if we act early. It is crucial that the issues raised in Amendment 3—getting in place the plan, pattern and process for using capital adequacy ratios to tackle the financial instability that will come from allowing climate change-related activities to continue and grow—be dealt with now, and rapidly. If the Government do not recognise what we have been describing here and commit to this review of the whole issue of capital adequacy and climate change, I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Oates will press his amendment. The message is absolutely critical.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for leading this debate this afternoon, and to all noble Lords who have spoken. We had a detailed debate in Committee on the need for the regulators to take a more systematic and urgent approach to their climate change obligations. I do not intend to repeat the general arguments, not least because the Minister accepted the need to embed our climate change goals in the financial services sector. The point of difference remained, how deep and how fast. Since that time, we have had a useful meeting with the Minister and we were pleased to hear that he had accepted our arguments concerning the need for the regulators to have regard to the Climate Change Act. The Government’s amendments, tabled today, reflect that concession and we consider this to be a considerable step forward. I thank him for his work in making that happen.
Since then, the Minister has also facilitated the sending of two letters from the PRA and FCA setting out their work on sustainable finance, to which a number of noble Lords have referred. It is useful to have their current commitments restated in this way and we are pleased that they have engaged with us on the subject. It is also helpful that they have set their work in an international context, as we know that we cannot solve this issue alone. However, I would say to the regulators, and indeed to the Treasury, that what is lacking in these letters is the urgency and reprioritisation that the climate change emergency demands. As we discussed in Committee, many individual financial institutions are already ahead of the game and are implementing dynamic green initiatives. We have heard great speeches from the Chancellor and others on the importance of the issue, but why are the regulators not being more ambitious, to ensure that everybody meets the standard of the best? As a result, today we have tabled further amendments to spell out in more detail how systemic finance-related climate risks should be embedded in the policy agenda going forward.
I have added my name to Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oates. It addresses the need for the PRA to review the risk weighting applied to investments in existing and new fossil fuel exploitation and production. The noble Lord has explained the case for that amendment extremely well today. We agree that the current regime does not adequately reflect the high-risk exposure of such investments. Clearly, institutions with over-exposure to carbon-intensive investments are not acting prudentially and their capital requirements should reflect this. As we discussed before, as the policy agenda moves rapidly away from fossil fuels and towards renewables, there is a considerable risk of the assets being stranded. The capital adequacy requirements need to reflect this risk more accurately.
The Minister will know that the Basel Committee conducted a survey of regulators in April of last year to stocktake their supervisory initiatives on climate change financial risk. This seems to run counter to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was making—I listened carefully to what she was saying about the comparative responsibilities of regulators and banks—because the Bank of England and the PRA were both respondents to the survey. In fact, only six out of the 27 replies factored the mitigation of climate-related risk in to their prudential capital requirements so far, but there was some criticism in the conclusions of the survey as a result of that. So, were the UK regulators in the good minority or the bad majority in the outcome of that survey, and are their responses to it in the public domain? Does he also accept that, without the necessary adjustments made in Amendment 3, investments will continue to focus disproportionately on outdated oil and gas activities that run counter not only to investments but to the interests of the UK economy as a whole? This point was well illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. This is why we would particularly welcome the involvement of the Climate Change Committee, in order to provide the wider perspective of the longer-term UK interests, rather than the narrow short-term interests on which investment decisions are too often made. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to give us the assurances we seek in this regard.
I have also added my name to Amendment 22, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for which she made a very powerful case. We believe it essential that the Government set out how they will actively ensure that climate change considerations are reflected in the regulators’ statutory objectives. This amendment would provide a framework for systematically assessing and reporting on climate change financial risk. It would ensure that all government guidance is linked in order to provide a coherent and entire picture on managing climate change—an improvement on the current piecemeal reporting structure. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to give us the assurances we seek on this issue. It would also be helpful if he could spell out what future formal reporting mechanisms would be put in place to achieve this.
Moving on to Amendment 23, at Committee and again today, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has made a compelling case that the FCA needs a senior executive to oversee and deliver the climate change agenda. Like her, we were pleased to see in the FCA’s letter that a dedicated director of environmental and social governance standards is being recruited to lead on this work. We welcome this appointment and believe it represents a real step forward.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I understand we now have the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, back to finish his speech, so I call him at this point.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]
My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long at this stage. I fear I got cut off just as I was extolling the virtues of how new technologies could help in this endeavour. I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend the Minister and look forward to his explanation of them.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, let me begin by saying that I have listened carefully to the debate today, as well as the important contributions made in earlier debates on this Bill. As a result of those earlier debates and subsequent discussions held with a number of your Lordships, the Government have tabled the four amendments included in this group, which I shall speak to in a moment. Before I do, I want to leave the House in no doubt as to the context in which we are now operating.
In November, my right honourable friend the Chancellor set out a vision for the financial services sector to put the full weight of private sector innovation, expertise and capital behind the critical global effort to tackle climate change and protect the environment. That is why the Government are taking a number of actions, such as making climate-related financial disclosures mandatory across the economy by 2025, with a significant portion of mandatory requirements in place by 2023, and issuing our first-ever green gilt later this year. At Budget this month, we augmented the Government’s economic objectives and the remit of the Monetary Policy Committee and Financial Policy Committee to support environmental sustainability and the transition to net zero. We also established the UK infrastructure bank with a mandate that includes tackling climate change. The Government have ambitious plans to ensure that the financial services sector as a whole plays its role in supporting our climate change commitments. However, we heard loud and clear the strong views from members of this House that they wanted to see that ambition reflected in this Bill.
Amendments 43 and 47 in my name will require the PRA and the FCA to consider the 2050 carbon target in relation to the Climate Change Act 2008 when making prudential rules under the accountability framework set out in this Bill. The Government are showing, very publicly, how the financial services sector and our regulators can take a lead role in delivering on our climate commitments. They are also showing the rest of the world that the UK is taking a cross-sector approach. I have greatly welcomed the way in which noble Lords have engaged with me on this issue. We have picked the 2050 carbon target, as it benefits from being both legally defined and substantively focused. This makes it clear to both regulators exactly what they must have regard to in making their rules and how they can be held to account.
As I explained in earlier debates, the Government and the regulators are committed to implementing the first wave of Basel reforms and the initial introduction of the investment firms prudential regime on 1 January 2022. These reforms are important for our international standing as a country that upholds its international commitments, for financial stability, and for our competitiveness relative to the EU. As I said in Committee, there is a great deal of work happening at the moment at the international standard-setting level to determine exactly how climate change should be factored into prudential policy globally. This is why Amendments 46 and 49 delay the application of mandatory climate change considerations to 1 January 2022. This will ensure there is sufficient time for this work to progress, and that there is no unnecessary and impractical delay in implementing these vital regimes. Otherwise, we would be in the unfortunate position where the regulators would have to reopen or restart their consultations.
When and how will the amendments bite, if not on the first wave of Basel and the IFPR? I can assure noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that the PRA will still need to make rules to implement substantive reforms contained in Basel 3.1, which will be implemented in 2023. These rules will be within the scope of the amendments in my name. I fully expect the regulators to use the powers again in future to update their rules—for example, to take account of new international standards or developments in the market. I hope the House will agree that these amendments strike the right balance between acting quickly on climate change and taking swift action to reform our prudential regimes which aims to prevent a future crisis. I therefore see this as a significant action which very visibly demonstrates the Government’s commitment to furthering this important agenda.
The Government are also acting to ensure that the regulators take account of our climate commitments more broadly. At Budget, the Treasury published remit letters for the Monetary Policy Committee and the Financial Policy Committee, requiring both these committees to consider the Government’s commitments on climate change. Today, I can confirm that the Chancellor has set new remits for the FCA and the PRA that will also require them to consider these commitments across the whole of their remit. As has been mentioned in this debate, the CEOs of the PRA and the FCA have both written to me to set out the significant amount of work they have under way. I will provide some further details on this in a moment. They have also demonstrated their clear commitment to acting to address climate change. I have placed copies of their letters in the Library and in the Royal Gallery.
Lastly, and importantly, there is the future regulatory framework review. This is the means by which the Government are exploring how the regulators focus more broadly on important public policy issues, such as climate. I hope this meets one of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I can add to it because, as part of that review, the Government recently consulted on a proposal to allow Parliament and Ministers to specify new regulatory principles for specific areas of activity—for example, setting out how the regulators must consider sustainability or green issues when making rules. The Government are considering the responses to the consultation ahead of a second consultation later this year, and recognise the need to address this crucial issue across the whole regulatory framework. I hope I have shown that the Government understand the issue, that we are taking the appropriate actions and that the regulators are ready and willing to support such actions.
I now turn to the other amendments in this group, though not in numerical order. I begin with Amendment 44, which would amend one of my own amendments. Amendment 44 would require the FCA also to take into consideration the UK’s commitments under the UN convention on biodiversity when making rules to implement the investment firms prudential regime.
This Government are committed to being the first to leave the natural environment in a better state than they found it, with our long-term agenda laid out in the 25-year environment plan. As the Dasgupta review highlights, and as the noble Baroness recognises, the global financial system will play a critical role in enhancing our stock of natural assets and encourage sustainable consumption and production activities. We will reflect on the conclusions and recommendations of the Dasgupta review and consider the most appropriate way to take them forward. However, unlike the 2050 carbon target in the Climate Change Act 2008, which my own amendment targets, the commitments under the UN convention are extensive, varied and more challenging to deliver through financial services regulation. Work on how the financial sector can support our transition towards net zero is more developed than work on how the sector can support biodiversity goals.
However, work to develop our understanding is under way. For example, just last year we saw the launch of the Task Force on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. This task force will provide a framework for businesses to assess, manage and report on their dependencies and impacts on nature. This will support the appraisal of nature-related risk and will continue to realign incentives which support our biodiversity goals.
The Convention on Biological Diversity—COP 15—will also be an important milestone for international action on biodiversity. We will work with countries to agree long-term, realistic, measurable and fit-for-purpose targets to set nature on the path to recovery. Nature will also feature as one of five policy themes for COP 26, which has been agreed by the Prime Minister. The nature campaign is focused on catalysing action to protect and restore the natural habitats and ecosystems on which our climate, air, water and way of life depend, which includes increasing the volume of finance for nature-based solutions. I listened with interest to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in that context.
Amendment 3 would place a legal obligation on the PRA to review the risk weights applied to certain fossil fuel exposures and thereby the amount of capital held against them. The purpose of risk weighting is to preserve the safety and soundness of our financial system and to prevent banks failing as a result of not covering themselves appropriately against the risks they are taking. I was grateful for the remarks of my noble friend Lady Noakes on these issues.
In its letter to me, the PRA recognises the threat posed by climate change to the UK economy and the financial system and sets out the steps it is taking to mitigate this threat. This includes setting out specific and detailed supervisory expectations for both banks and insurers on their approach to managing financial risks from climate change. The PRA has also written to firms setting out its expectations that firms should have fully embedded their approaches to managing climate-related financial risks by the end of 2021.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, questioned why a lower risk rating should be applied to fossil fuel funding than some other asset classes. As I am sure he is aware, the risk weighting of assets is decided internationally through a set of agreed standards set by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, and this is based on analysis of how risk is transmitted and how it can be quantified. These post-crisis reforms have also been endorsed by the G20 and ensure that risk weights are applied consistently across the globe. The flexible approach taken in the Bill ensures that, where considerations around the risk weighting of assets change, the PRA can respond to developing circumstances as they arise.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting and engaging debate and I give particular thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and Lady Altmann, for signing Amendment 3, and to my noble friend Lady Kramer, as well as to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I am also grateful to the Minister for his engagement at all times.
I am sorry if the wording of the amendment caused any confusion to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, but I hope that the clear explanation made by my noble friend Lady Kramer has lifted it. I do not have anything to add to that, except to say that I have no doubt that the PRA will understand very clearly what it is being asked to do. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said that he felt that a review would be disproportionate. I am not sure what he is measuring the proportions against but, if anything, the amendment seems to be a disproportionately modest response to a desperately urgent issue that will impact on us all.
I am pleased that the Minister and the FCA have reacted to a number of the amendments, in particular Amendment 23 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on the senior manager of the FCA, and obviously I welcome the movement on the Government’s “have-regard” amendments.
I reiterate my thanks to the Minister for his engagement during this process, although I am disappointed that he has not been able to provide the reassurance I had hoped for that risk weights would be properly addressed. He said that we had to move not with undue haste but with due speed—but I am not sure that we are doing either.
I am afraid that I do not accept that the issues are covered sufficiently by the existing work that he has taken the trouble to set out, not least because the approach being followed does not take into account sufficiently the specific issues set out for the review in my amendment, in particular the climate-related disruption of the economy. It is very important that this review should take place and that the PRA can use it to look properly into these issues. As I said in my opening speech, it should feed into discussions at international level. It is very important that it is looked at in terms of the remit of my amendment. So, on that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, there being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order 55, I declare the amendment disagreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 4. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 4
Baroness Noakes
“Continuity of contract
If the FCA exercises one or more of the powers under Article 23D of the Benchmarks Regulation in respect of a benchmark, any reference to or description of that benchmark in a contract, security or instrument must be, with effect from the date of such exercise, interpreted as a reference to or description of the benchmark as modified by the FCA under its powers under Article 23D.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that if the FCA revised a benchmark under Article 23D (inserted by Clause 15) there would be continuity of contract by replacing references to the earlier benchmark with the revised one.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 4, I shall speak to the other two amendments in this group in my name. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for adding their names to Amendment 6.
I spoke at length in Committee about the problems of tough legacy contracts, and I shall not repeat all of that. To summarise, when Libor ceases to be available at the end of this year there will be a number of contracts which reference Libor but which have not been renegotiated to substitute an alternative rate. We do not know exactly how many contracts are involved, but it is thought to be a significant number. It is not a niche problem; it arises in both the capital market and retail markets and in many different kinds of contract. While sustained efforts by financial services providers have reduced the scale of the problem, it cannot be fully resolved for various reasons, and I think that that has been accepted by all parties.
The Bill helpfully provides for the FCA to ensure that what is known as synthetic Libor will be available for use in those contracts which have not been renegotiated, but two problems remain. First, while the FCA has made synthetic Libor available for use, the FCA cannot change the contracts itself; it requires separate provision in law. Amendment 4 would provide for continuity of contract so that any contract, loan or security referencing Libor will be taken to reference synthetic Libor instead. Secondly, even if references to Libor are regarded as meaning synthetic Libor, there remains a risk of litigation if one or more parties object to the substitution of synthetic Libor and believes that some other fallback is more appropriate. Amendment 5 says that no claim or cause of action can arise due to the use of synthetic Libor. This is a safe harbour provision.
I recognise that the exact drafting of continuity of contract and safe harbour is not straightforward, though I emphasise that my amendments have been drafted with the help of lawyers who are specialists in capital markets, and that they mirror the draft legislation which has been drawn up for New York law by the Alternative Reference Rates Committee. Nevertheless, I have also tabled Amendment 6, which takes a slightly different approach by giving the Treasury the power to make regulations dealing with contract continuity and/ or safe harbour. It does not require the Treasury to do either or both of those things but offers a straightforward method of dealing with the problem in secondary legislation if, for some reason, the Government feel unable to legislate directly at this stage.
I tabled Amendments 4 and 5 in Committee and was met with the expected response that the Government had recently issued a consultation on contract continuity and safe harbour, and that the consultation period had not concluded. The Government would decide what to do once they had considered the consultation responses. The consultation has now concluded, so it is time for the Government to decide what to do. As I understand it, there were only a relatively small number of responses to the consultation, and they are overwhelmingly in favour of proceeding with continuity of contract and safe harbour. I hope that my noble friend the Minster will confirm that.
I had hoped that the Government would table amendments of their own on Report, but life is full of disappointments. The clock is counting down to 31 December this year and those areas of the financial services market which are impacted by tough legacy contracts desperately need some certainty about the way forward. I therefore call on the Government to either accept one of my amendment variants—Amendments 4 and 5 or, alternatively, Amendment 6—or commit to bringing their own amendment forward at Third Reading. If the opportunity of this Bill is missed, it is by no means clear whether there will be a later opportunity in time for the cessation of Libor, which is only nine months from now. I hope that the Government will want to avoid creating a long period of uncertainty and will not let this Bill pass into law without fully dealing with tough legacy contracts. I beg to move.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for forgetting to declare my interest as a director of two financial services regulated companies.
I support Amendments 4, 5 and 6, ably moved by my noble friend Lady Noakes, whose long experience and mastery of the detail of financial markets and regulation is an invaluable asset to your Lordships’ House. As far as Amendments 4 and 5 are concerned, she presented the arguments very well in Committee and today. I was also impressed by the arguments deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who quoted the FCA’s view that in cases where parties to contracts referencing Libor cannot reach agreement on how those contracts would operate in the event of Libor’s cessation, discontinuation could cause uncertainty, litigation, or loss of value because contracts no longer function as intended.
The Minister recognised that we must reduce contracts referencing Libor as much as possible by the end of this year. Given the vast number of outstanding contracts, clearly that will not be possible, and rightly the Government have initiated a consultation process on this subject. However, does he not agree that the risk of uncertainty and litigation is significant and that there is unlikely to be a better opportunity to legislate in time to mitigate such risks than that which this Bill provides?
In Amendment 6, my noble friend Lady Noakes, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has offered an alternative method of mitigating these risks. As a rule, I do not like the trend towards taking excessive Henry VIII powers, which greatly reduce the transparency and accountability of the Government. However, if my noble friend the Minister cannot accept Amendments 4 and 5, the alternative—Amendment 6—would in that case be acceptable as being much better than the situation that will otherwise quite possibly evolve with great damage to market integrity and much expensive litigation.
I hope that the Minister has thought more about these issues since our last debate and I look forward to hearing how her thinking has evolved to meet the very sensible points that my noble friend’s amendments would address.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, in Committee, I supported the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, as something that had to be done. It seemed to be a reasonable, if simple, concept that a flawed benchmark reference in a contract, if changed to a closely corresponding but not flawed benchmark—a change required by the regulator—should not give rise to litigation, not least because the contracts should still largely perform as originally intended.
Some contracts may have had termination clauses in the event of no benchmark, which could give rise to premature terminations and winners and losers. However, this is not really a no-benchmark situation. While not everyone has sympathy with banks and industry should they be the losers, this is not a matter on which they would be at fault. I am sure that everyone would have sympathy if consumers were losers but what if it goes the other way and banks want to pursue consumers if they are the winners? I am sure that that would be seen as unacceptable.
This is not mis-selling but, as far as contracts are concerned, it is a blameless matter and it seems to me that continuity is the closest to honouring original intents. If there were a way in which to make simple compensatory adjustments, we would not be facing these problems. I therefore still feel that something has to be done and doing the same as the US also seems to be good in terms of the UK’s reputation for giving certainty to markets.
However, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has now come up with a third amendment, Amendment 6, which empowers the Treasury to address matters further down the track and gives more flexibility in what may be determined. It is a bit of kicking the can down the road and a bit of Henry VIII, but one hopes that it will encourage more solutions to be found. I have therefore added my name to that amendment and hope that at least, if the Minister cannot accept the other amendments, it can be accepted as a way forward.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to speak to this group of amendments and declare my interests as set out in the register.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Noakes not just on the eloquence that she demonstrated in introducing these three amendments but on the quality of their drafting. As an ex-City solicitor, I look on that with awe. I also congratulate my noble friend on offering options. We had a thorough and in-depth debate in Committee on these issues. My noble friend has done the House a great service in bringing a buffet approach for the Government to consider. If they are not partial to Amendments 4 or 5, Amendment 6 will work just as satisfactorily.
These amendments need to be seriously considered. For the want of certainty and for ensuring that litigation does not result if we do nothing, I ask my noble friend the Minister on Amendments 4, 5 or 6, as I have in the past and will do on forthcoming amendments: if not this Financial Services Bill, which financial services Bill? If not now, when?
Lord Blackwell (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I support these amendments, which have been so well explained by my noble friend Lady Noakes. In Grand Committee, the Minister accepted that there were concerns that a residual risk of disruption and potential litigation would remain even once the FCA had exercised its powers under the Bill. This is really important, given the amount of money and the number of contracts at stake, and the timescale of the changes in the benchmark at the end of 2021.
My noble friend the Minister said that the Government would prefer to wait for the results of the consultation, but these are not new issues. The Treasury and regulators have been aware of them for many months. The argument was made that the reason for waiting for the consultation is that there might be areas where there was legitimate reason for civil litigation and that those legitimate legal claims might be blocked. I am not persuaded that there are legitimate legal claims where the benchmark is being replaced with a synthetic benchmark at the direction of the regulator. There has to be a change and I cannot think of situations where those claims might be appropriate and fair. I would welcome it if the Minister can explain where those concerns come from and what situations might be blocked unfairly by these amendments.
Other than that, we should move to deal with these concerns now, as noble Lords have said. If the Minister does not like the specificity of Amendments 4 and 5, I would certainly be prepared to accept Amendment 6. I hope my noble friend the Minister will come back at Third Reading with government amendments to address these issues. If she does not feel able to do that and my noble friend Lady Noakes were to bring back her amendments at Third Reading, I would be compelled to support her.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for bringing forward these amendments. I have to confess that I am not keen on Amendment 5 because it seems that it would create an opportunity for various institutions to use the change in the benchmark in a way that would be abusive to a customer, who would then have no redress.
Amendment 5 goes too far, but Amendment 6 makes perfect sense to me. Frankly, I find it extraordinary to think that the Government have not seized it and put “government” in front of it. We will face tough legacy contracts and there needs to be a sensible and appropriate way to deal with them. Amendment 6 captures that exactly as it should. I hope very much that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, will get a positive reply on Amendment 6 from the Government, otherwise there will be litigation and a mess, and I am not sure that that helps anybody.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her persistence in this vital area. She is quite right that the clock is ticking: with nine months to go, we really need to do something about this issue; to do otherwise would be irresponsible.
Amendment 4 is valuable in defining continuity of contract, but there remains a problem that it does not and cannot solve: if the foundation of a contract is changed, its value can change. That leads on to Amendment 5. Here, I regret to say that I differ with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and with the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. It is surely the responsibility of Parliament in this case primarily to protect the retail investor, as it is the retail investor who is not the professional, who typically does not have the same information as the professional and who is likely to be more financially vulnerable, not least because retail investment is dominated by pension savings. I therefore conclude that the provision of a safe harbour is inappropriate in this case and would be looking instead for some mechanism of reconciliation rather than prevention of claim.
However, I am delighted to express my support for Amendment 6—which is not surprising as my name is on it. Here the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has actually saved the Government from considerable embarrassment by presenting an amendment which succinctly encapsulates, without being prescriptive, the issues the FCA must address in facing the difficulties created by the replacement of Libor: continuity of contract and reconciling the damages. Unlike Amendments 4 and 5, Amendment 6 incorporates those. I express strong support for Amendment 6 and recommend it wholeheartedly to the Government. In terms of the buffet approach, it is the healthy option.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Noble Lords will remember from previous stages that the Bill provides the FCA with the powers to manage an orderly wind-down of a critical benchmark such as the Libor benchmark.
In 2015, the Financial Stability Board recommended a transition away from certain interest rate benchmarks, including Libor, to alternative rates based on active and liquid underlying markets. In 2017, the FCA secured agreement from the panel banks that contribute to Libor that they would continue submissions until the end of 2021, providing time for firms to move away from use of the Libor wherever possible.
However, it has been clear for some time that there will be certain “tough legacy” contracts that will be unable to transition away from Libor in time. It is for the benefit of these contracts that the Bill grants the FCA the power under Article 23D of the Benchmarks Regulation to direct a change in how a benchmark is calculated, so that the benchmark can continue for a limited time after banks stop providing their contributions. The Bill therefore represents a critical step in providing for a smooth transition away from Libor, mitigating the risk of the financial instability and market disruption that could be caused by a disorderly transition or end to Libor. It has been widely welcomed by the financial services industry and internationally.
The proposed amendments seek to supplement the Bill’s provisions, reducing further the scope for uncertainty, contractual disputes or litigation between parties over the reference to a benchmark within a contract where the FCA has directed a change in the methodology on which the benchmark is calculated. Amendment 4 seeks to provide for contract continuity where the FCA uses its Article 23D power to impose a change in the methodology of a critical benchmark, providing that parties must interpret references to that benchmark in their contracts as references to the revised benchmark. Amendment 5 seeks to reduce the scope for litigation where the FCA has exercised its Article 23D power on a critical benchmark, providing a safe harbour for the use of that benchmark.
As stated in Committee and in the other place, the Government are committed to ensuring that an appropriate framework is in place for the orderly wind-down of Libor. We take this matter very seriously. As my noble friend Lady Noakes noted, the Government’s consultation on this issue has only recently closed, on 15 March. The consultation responses have underscored that there are complex and wide-ranging policy and legal considerations that must be fully understood before taking any further action on this issue. That range of considerations and views has been illustrated by the range of views expressed in this evening’s debate, but my noble friend Lady Noakes is correct to say that the industry has indicated, including through its responses to the consultation, that it is supportive of the approach set by the Government in the consultation.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I even include my noble friend the Minister, although she will know that much of what she said was very disappointing—not only to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate but to the financial services industry, which was hoping for a more definitive outcome.
Letting the opportunity for legislating in this Bill go by, even if only by way of a regulation-making power, is a major loss. I am struggling to understand how the Treasury could have got itself into this position. The need to deal with tough legacy contracts is most certainly not a new issue. The fact that both contract continuity and safe-harbour provisions were an issue for the financial services sector has been known for more than a year. In the US, there is already draft legislation for New York law, and even the EU has brought forward a partial solution. But the Treasury seems like a rabbit staring into the headlights, too frightened to move. This does not auger well for the UK’s ability to build and maintain our financial services sector as world-leading, which I thought was one of the aims of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
We cannot blame the suffocating bureaucracy of the EU any more if our financial services sector is held back or harmed. Taking back control requires that the Government take responsibility for their role in making the UK a good place for financial services firms. Their inability to deal with the issue of tough legacy Libor contracts in the Bill is not a good look.
The Government and, in particular, the Treasury need to take a long, hard look at themselves and work out if they are yet up to the task of supporting this sector, which is so important to the UK as a whole. Their ability to act at pace and decisively is important; I do not yet detect that they are showing those characteristics. Having said that, I was grateful that my noble friend confirmed that the Government remained committed to a framework for an orderly transition from Libor next year, and that they are taking this seriously and will find a way forward. She did not, however, indicate what timeframe it would be decided in. She ought to be aware that the financial services sector is watching and expects the Government to take this forward.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss progress with the Economic Secretary in due course, but discussion with me is not the most important thing. I think it is telling Parliament what is to be done, when and how it is to be done, and telling the financial services sector, which needs certainty for the way forward. It is with considerable regret that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we move to the group consisting of—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We have Amendments 5 and 6 to dispose of.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
Yes, I needed the correction. I am so sorry.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now move, after my error, to the group consisting of Amendment 7. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans has withdrawn, so I call on the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, who has added his name to the amendment, to move it.
Clause 22: Regulated activities and Gibraltar
Amendment 7
Lord Sikka
“32B Gibraltar-based persons: reporting requirements(1) A Gibraltar-based person carrying on an activity approved under Schedule 2A, or which has permission by virtue of relevant Gibraltar provision to carry on an activity, in the United Kingdom must be registered under section 1046 of the Companies Act 2006.(2) A company of the type referred to in subsection (1) is to be regulated in respect of activities that it undertakes in the United Kingdom by a relevant person as defined by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.(3) A reference to a relevant Gibraltar provision is to be read with section 23 of the Financial Services Act 2021.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require any Gibraltar-based person carrying on activities in the UK to file their accounts at Companies House and to be regulated in the UK with regard to their UK activities.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans sends his apologies. Due to unforeseen circumstances, he is unable to speak to Amendment 7. At very short notice, he has asked me to speak for him.
Amendment 7, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and myself, would require companies operating under the Gibraltar authorisation regime, or GAR, to be registered and to file their accounts in the UK at Companies House. It would also ensure that GAR companies are regulated in respect of their UK activities, in accordance with UK regulations.
I beg your Lordships’ indulgence. In order to minimise any disservice to the right reverend Prelate, my speech will be in two parts. First, I will relay what the right reverend Prelate would have said. Secondly, I will briefly add my own comments.
In the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans: I have placed this amendment because I did not feel that my concerns about Gibraltar were adequately satisfied in Committee when I tabled a similar amendment. I will be frank: I got the impression that because Gibraltar was an associated territory, there was a reluctance to ensure that it could not be used by companies to reduce their tax obligations. I understand that the Gibraltar authorisation regime allows for continuity of the financial services that existed when we were a member of the EU. But this should not discount the fact that a single market in financial services is being created here. Gibraltar is not necessarily a serial, global tax haven. According to the Tax Justice Network, Gibraltar ranks 30th in the corporate tax haven index, whereas the UK is ranked 13th. In no way do I want this to be an attack on the territory of Gibraltar, particularly having highlighted that the UK is ranked as a worse tax haven.
This amendment attempts to speak to a specific UK-Gibraltar issue on tax avoidance. The current relationship allows a Gibraltar-based company to operate, conduct its business and receive what would be taxable income in the UK, but then to pay corporation tax in Gibraltar. There is a corporation tax disparity between the UK and Gibraltar. Our corporation tax is 19% whereas Gibraltar’s is 10%.
During his evidence session to the Commons Committee, the Minister from Gibraltar said that the corporation tax rate was not a factor in companies relocating to Gibraltar. No doubt the Mediterranean climate and lifestyle make it a very attractive place to reside, but I would not presume that the warm climate is responsible for 20% of the UK’s private insurance market being underwritten from Gibraltar, despite the territory holding not even 0.1% of the UK’s population.
Financial services are one of Gibraltar’s primary industries, hence the tabling of this amendment. One might assume that greater transparency would apply to the finance and other sectors, ideally through stricter and more thorough reporting standards between Gibraltar and the UK. It is common practice in many industries for transactions placed in the UK to be processed via servers in Gibraltar—a technicality that allows what is, in reality, taxable income in the UK to be taxed in Gibraltar.
Obtaining evidence on the cost of the system to the UK Treasury is difficult. However, we have reliable data for the online gaming and gambling sector. Research and private investigations have shown that some of the UK’s major gambling firms actually pay corporation tax in the UK of between 3% and 13% by either headquartering in Gibraltar or using subsidiaries based there. We know of this only because the size of these firms brought them under journalistic scrutiny. If these practices were well documented for one sector, it would be illogical if other sectors did not follow the same incentives. After all, the purpose of reducing corporation tax is only one major reason for relocation to Gibraltar.
This amendment does not deal with the issue of taxation. In fact, even if the Government adopted the amendment, these practices would still continue. It would ensure that companies operating under the GAR regime abide by the Companies Act 2006, which mandates foreign countries to register and file accounts at Companies House.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, who has presented the amendment so clearly and effectively, while I also regret the absence of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who has been doing such sterling work in focusing on the practical real-world impacts of the Bill on people’s lives and welfare, to which, as we have discussed in other groups, a lack of effective regulation in the financial sector has done such damage.
In Committee, during a debate on a similar amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred to brass-plate economies and the damage that they do to societies if they become dominant. Indeed, much of our debate in Committee focused on the well-being of the people of Gibraltar. I have no objection to that; indeed, I welcome it. I wish them well in their difficult post-Brexit position, which they were put into despite 96% of them voting in 2016 to remain in the EU. However, we have to ask why 20% of the UK insurance sector and a large amount of our out-of-control, seriously damaging gambling sector is going through Gibraltar’s servers, with very little benefit to the people of the UK. I doubt whether ending it will make any great difference to the people of Gibraltar either; as the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, has just outlined—and he is one of your Lordships’ House’s experts in this area—very little of that money is likely to be seen in Gibraltar in any meaningful sense.
I note that the Minister said in Committee:
“This proposal cannot be supported by the Government because it does not reflect Gibraltar’s autonomy”,
but I am not sure that I understand that. If we are talking about regulating activities in the UK, which is what the amendment is explicitly about, surely that is a matter of sovereignty—the issue to which the Government are so attached. Perhaps the Minister can explain that further in his answer.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord True, said:
“The Government were satisfied that the Gibraltar authorisation regime is rigorous”,—[Official Report, 1/3/21; col. GC 308.]
but we have to ask why so much business is whizzing through Gibraltar, at least in electronic form, for no obvious reason.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, pointed out in Committee that Gibraltar has a population of around 33,000 but more than 60,000 registered companies, nearly two for every person living on the Rock. We know that Gibraltar as a society must need people to fulfil many roles, from childcare to garbage collection, food preparation and, probably now much more than before, customs officials. The regulators of those 60,000 companies must be kept very busy keeping a tight and careful eye on their activities. Perhaps the reason is simply the comparative corporation tax rates. As the right reverend Prelate intended to say, our corporation tax rate is 19% whereas Gibraltar’s is 10%. Of course, the Government promise that our corporation tax rates will rise to become somewhat closer to international norms—if not just yet—so the disparity and the potential attraction are likely only to increase.
I referred in Committee to the Tax Justice Network estimate that the Gibraltarian arrangements inflict costs of $4 billion on other nations, predominantly the UK. That figure could grow significantly with tax rises, so I would argue that the case for this amendment has become even stronger, and I remain, with many others, doubtful about the level of transparency and scrutiny.
Ultimately, this amendment is about activities in the UK. It is not about Gibraltar at all. It is about transparency, honesty and ensuring that profits made in the UK are properly taxed in the UK.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am cautious about any further disruption for Gibraltar post Brexit. The challenge that Gibraltarians face is going to be an exceedingly difficult one and, since the UK put Gibraltar into that situation, we ought to be sympathetic and supportive.
I understand the motives of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and others to increase transparency, but we are talking about what is best described as legal tax avoidance, not tax evasion. I hear nothing but widespread respect for the Gibraltarian tax authorities and the way they manage the business that falls under their supervision.
This is a dangerous time to deny another party equivalence when we ourselves are seeking equivalence from the European Union. I would point out, as others have done, that we have rather a low corporate tax rate at the moment. It is due to rise in the future, but we will still be at the low end of the G7. At the moment, we are exceedingly low compared to most of our EU competitors. We have also granted equivalence to the EU, and that includes locations such as Luxembourg and Ireland, which have low corporate taxes much more akin to those of Gibraltar.
So I do not think we have a major problem here. I am always glad to see an opportunity for transparency but, in this case, we are not looking at shutting down criminal activities, which is the area where I would like to see us work very hard on transparency. I think we need to be responsible to the people of Gibraltar, who sit in a position that is not of their choosing.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, the measures in this Bill that refer to Gibraltar essentially create a single financial market, and an essential component of a single financial market should be a single registry standard. So I want to ask the Government about their approach to this. When they decided to promote the measures in the Bill in support of Gibraltar, did Her Majesty’s Treasury conduct a review of the Gibraltar registry, and could the Minister tell us the result of that review? For example, could he tell us whether the Gibraltar registry is as transparent as that of Companies House?
Noble Lords will be well aware, after Committee, that my opinion of the Companies House registry is pretty low, in particular regarding its inability to provide a verified register of beneficial ownership, which is at the foundation of the right reverend Prelate’s concern with tax issues. So could the Minister assure us that the Gibraltar registry has a verified register of beneficial ownership, as well as being transparent?
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I certainly regret, along with others, that the right reverend Prelate was unable to be here to speak to his amendment, but we fully understand the reasons for that. Obviously, the House has great respect for his expertise in these financial matters. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for delivering aspects of his speech.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, who raised an issue relating to state aid, I should say for the record that the issue he raised is a legacy state aid issue, relating entirely to the period when the UK was a member of the European Union. The Government of Gibraltar have already recovered some of the aid and continue to work to recover the outstanding aid, in compliance with the European Commission’s decision to bring this case to a satisfactory conclusion as fast as possible.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, to conclude the debate on the right reverend Prelate’s amendment.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
I thank all the contributors to this debate, which has been very informative and helpful. Given that roughly 25% of UK motor insurance is written from Gibraltar, it is clear that large amounts of profit made in the UK are being booked in Gibraltar and that the public purse here is being deprived of large amounts of tax revenue.
Of course, we might take the view that Gibraltar has been hit hard by Brexit and therefore deserves some support, but, as I pointed out, the beneficiaries of those profits are not necessarily people in Gibraltar but are actually corporations using Gibraltar to extract revenue from the UK. The ultimate destination of those profits is not really known because there is no transparency at all. Whether somebody is engaging in tax evasion or tax avoidance, the effect on the UK public purse is the same: the loss of revenue.
We still need greater transparency but at the moment, we do not have it. I hope that, when we have a public form of country-by-country reporting, perhaps that will provide some form of transparency, but at the moment the Government are not committed to that.
Nevertheless, I thank everybody for their contributions to the debate, and with the permission of the House and on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 8. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 34: Debt respite scheme
Amendment 8
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the Minister’s amendments at page 40, lines 16 and 31 make drafting changes in connection with the Minister’s first amendment at page 47, line 34.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to the other amendments in this group. The Sewel convention states that normally, the UK Parliament will legislate in areas that are devolved only with the permission of the relevant legislature, obtained through the legislative consent Motion process.
In recent weeks, despite the best efforts of Ministers and officials from HM Treasury and the Northern Ireland Executive, it has become clear that the legislative consent Motions for relevant parts of the Bill would not be completed before Report in this House. It is therefore necessary to ensure that certain elements of the Bill do not apply in Northern Ireland, in line with the Sewel convention.
I assure the House that the great majority of the Bill will have effect in Northern Ireland, as financial services is a reserved matter. However, it is necessary for Northern Ireland to be removed from the relevant parts of the Statutory Debt Repayment Plan and account freezing and forfeiture measures in Clause 34 and Schedule 12, with connected changes to Clause 44 on extent and Clause 45 on commencement in addition.
These are technical amendments which the Government have tabled to avoid legislating without consent. Our understanding is that the absence of a consent Motion is due to current timing constraints rather than any concern about the substance of the measures. Legislative consent was not denied—the process was simply not completed.
Amendments 50 and 51 will amend Schedule 12 so that certain provisions in that schedule will have different effects in Northern Ireland from those in England and Wales and Scotland. Amendments 38, 40, 41 and 42 amend Clauses 44 and 45 to help give effect to the changes to Schedule 12. The amendments retain the status quo in Northern Ireland regarding the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and the changes which Schedule 12 makes to that Act will have effect only in England, Wales and Scotland. It is important to be clear that these amendments will not affect Schedule 12 as it relates to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Anti-terrorism is an excepted matter and the changes which Schedule 12 makes to that Act will have effect across the UK.
Amendments 8, 9, 10, 13 and 39 prevent most of the changes made in Clause 34 extending to Northern Ireland. These are the provisions relating to the Statutory Debt Repayment Plan measure.
Clause 34(4), which provides an express power to bind the Crown, will continue to apply to Northern Ireland. This is done so as not to disturb the position on Crown application that the Government consider originally applied in the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 in relation to Northern Ireland.
I would like to reassure noble Lords that Northern Ireland will still be able to make its own legislation providing for a debt respite scheme of its own design, including similar provisions to those in Clause 34, if these are desired. UK Government officials will of course continue to work closely with and support their opposite numbers on the design and implementation of a debt respite scheme for Northern Ireland if this is pursued.
I urge the House to accept these amendments, which are necessary to avoid legislating for Northern Ireland without the appropriate consent. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, does not appear on the list, but he should have been included, so I call him next.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to the House for allowing me to speak at this point. I put in a request, but it got omitted. The Deputy Speaker has expressed the situation well.
The substance of the issues raised by the noble Earl in his introduction are incontestable. We respect the devolution settlement and we need to make sure that everything we do is in accordance with that. He slightly misspoke in the sense that the Sewel convention now has statutory force, rather than being just a convention. Indeed, it is often now called the Sewel principle. When we were dealing with matters arising from the internal market Bill, which came to your Lordships’ House about six months ago, that was certainly the way in which we addressed this issue.
I understand the logic behind the Government’s current position and their concern that they should not take steps which would in any sense mitigate the Sewel principle, as discussed. However, I was left a little confused by the noble Earl’s remarks, despite the usual clarity with which he expressed himself.
As I understood it, the debt respite scheme was being progressed under regulations made under the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018, to which he referred. It therefore seems a little odd that we are still concerned that that might not go ahead or that, if it did, it would do so under regulations made in Northern Ireland rather than those which will apply in England and Wales. From memory, this will be in place from May 2021, which is not very far away. I would be grateful if the noble Earl could be a little clearer about that when he comes to respond, or perhaps he could write to me and we could discuss this. The issue is where that authority will vest going forward. Will it relate to the UK financial guidance Act or to local legislation put through by the Northern Ireland Assembly? Matters may arise regarding how that is decided, but I would like to know the answer.
The other question is how we make progress in relation to the statutory debt repayment plans. The issue here is again whether the necessary legislative consent order would have come through, when it has not, in relation to that. If that is the case, perhaps the Minister will confirm whether that is happening. If it is not happening, is not the situation a little different this time? Because, as we are going to discuss in the next group, we are now being told that the timeframe for the delivery of the SDRP is going to be the end of 2024, which is, after all, three and a bit years away. It seems unlikely that there will still be a problem if we are waiting for the Northern Ireland Assembly to consider that: we should be able to get through that in three and a half years’ time.
I would be grateful if the Minister would let us know a bit more about the Government’s plans and again, it that is not in his notes, he can write to me and we can discuss it offline.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the minute I saw this group of amendments, I knew they were above my pay grade. I am in awe of the understanding of the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. I forwarded all the amendments to those of my colleagues who deal specifically with Northern Ireland, and I think they travelled over to Northern Ireland, as well, for review there. The message I got back was that the timing—I will not repeat the word that followed—problem, let us say, was not a problem.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these amendments and for the explanation that was shared ahead of this debate. We will not oppose them today, as it is right that changes should not be made without legislative consent. It is, however, very troubling that these provisions will go forward without Northern Ireland’s inclusion. and that time has not been offered to allow the Northern Ireland Executive to pass a consent Motion. It is my understanding that there were also difficulties on timing for a legislative consent Motion during the passage of the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill. It cannot become a habit for this Government to carve Northern Ireland out of legislation at the last minute or treat legislative consent as an afterthought. What conversations were had with the Northern Ireland Executive on the problem of timing? Were any measures considered to allow them extra time as needed?
Have the Government identified ways to prevent this happening again? On the substantive issues, the result is that the Bill will be passed without offering the same powers and protections for communities and law enforcement in Northern Ireland as in other areas of the UK. This is of particular concern for the statutory debt repayment plans at a time when the impact of the Covid pandemic has placed extreme stress on people’s personal finances.
Finally, what options are the Government considering, with the Northern Ireland Executive, to ensure that Northern Ireland is given an opportunity to enact these provisions and that communities in Northern Ireland are able to benefit from the planned support on debt and personal finance?
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their remarks, and I stress again that UK government officials will of course continue to work closely with and support their opposite numbers in Northern Ireland. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, will accept that that is as far as I can go as regards our support for our Northern Ireland colleagues, because the ball is very much in their court as to how they wish to proceed and when. As and when they decide to proceed, they will of course get full co-operation from the UK Government.
I would like to touch on a question that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked me relating to the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill. That also gave rise to an issue over a legislative consent Motion from Northern Ireland. The context for securing legislative consent for the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021—as it now is—was quite distinct from that for this Bill. Northern Ireland Executive Ministers were asked to consider promoting a supplementary legislative consent Motion on a second occasion as a result of amendments added to the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill during its House of Lords Committee stage. The Northern Ireland Assembly had sufficient time to consider and pass a supplementary LCM before the Bill’s Report stage in the second House—in this case, the Lords. Report is considered to be the last substantive amending stage of a Bill in the House of Lords and, consequently, the last opportunity for the Government to avoid legislating for Northern Ireland had consent been denied or not achieved in time.
Unfortunately for this Bill, it has not been possible to secure legislative consent in time, in spite of the efforts of our officials and those in the Northern Ireland Executive. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked whether we can prevent this situation happening again. I respectfully say to him that it really is not within the control of the Government here to influence the order of business and the work conducted by the Northern Ireland Executive. It is largely in their domain, but I hope my earlier reassurances will have been helpful on this topic.
The background to this, to come to his earlier point and the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is that breathing space regulations, which are the second half of the SDRP measures, that come into force on 4 May this year, do not apply in Northern Ireland, largely due to there being no sitting Assembly during the policy formulation and drafting of regulations. As I have said, we have been advised by officials in Northern Ireland that it will not be possible to pass the LCM agreeing that Parliament should legislate on their behalf until mid- to late April, which is too late for the Lords’ Report stage. The amendment carves out Northern Ireland from Clause 34 as I have described, with the exception of Clause 34(4). The Government understand that the relevant departments in Northern Ireland intend to take forward their own legislation for a debt respite scheme in due course.
I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has the better of me in his detailed questions. I will need to write to him, if he will forgive my not answering him now, on where the precise authority vests in relation to a Northern Ireland debt respite scheme, and indeed how the Government’s plan for the debt respite scheme will pan out prior to the end of 2024.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 11. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 11
“(4B) The regulations may also include the following as part of the scheme—(a) provision to ensure that debt advisers that are responsible for the delivery of debt advice in support of a plan for the repayment of some, or all, of an individual’s debts have been properly authorised by the FCA;(b) provision to ensure that when an individual is deemed suitable to enter into a plan for the repayment of some or all of their outstanding debts, the organisation holding funds on behalf of the individual and making the agreed repayments to creditors must be a charity or other not-for-profit organisation properly authorised by the FCA;(c) provision to ensure that the aggregate provision payable in respect of the costs of operating the repayment plan, other repayment plans, the debt respite scheme and the wider debt advice services being provided meets the reasonable annual costs of the organisations involved; (d) provision that the debts that are dealt with under a plan for repayment include those owed to Her Majesty’s Government and those owed to other UK public bodies and service providers;(e) provision that when an individual has entered into a plan for the repayment of some or all of their outstanding debts, they will receive protection from any warrant or action from bailiffs appointed by a UK court.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows further probing of the Government's plans to establish the Statutory Debt Management Scheme.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chair of StepChange, the debt charity. Amendment 11 has exactly the same wording as the amendment to Clause 34 that I moved in Committee. The purpose is to give the Government a further opportunity to set out in more detail their plans for the introduction of the statutory debt management plans in England and Wales—not, sadly, in Northern Ireland, yet—to complement that which is already working as a very successful scheme in Scotland. We are getting there by patchwork, even if we are unable to do so from top down, as we might wish.
I am very grateful to the Minister and officials for facilitating discussions about the detailed SDMP proposals, and for his very full letter of yesterday, which sets out the Government’s position very clearly. It is a very good letter to have, and we got a lot of reassurance from it.
I also touch on Amendment 12 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, which introduces an interesting and important aspect of debt management plans—a bit of detail, in fact. It is about the concept of negotiated debt settlements on behalf of debtors, which are already part of the current debt management plan process in operation in Scotland, and in England in an informal way—not statutorily backed. A realistic quantum for the outstanding debt is clearly a key metric when plans have been drawn up for what should constitute an affordable repayment schedule, so it makes sense to both sides if the final figures reduce the outstanding debt in as short a time as possible. I look forward to hearing further from the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate, if he is able to join us, about how they see this working in practice. I think they are probably more suited to regulatory action than statutory action in the Bill, but we will wait to see how the case comes out when it is argued.
Yesterday’s letter from the noble Lord, Lord True, is extremely helpful, and I thank him for it. In it, he explains that secondary legislation will spell out matters of detailed policy and implementation for the SDRP and confirms that, as these will be introduced by the affirmative resolution procedure, Parliament will be given adequate opportunity to debate and scrutinise the regulations. I welcome that. In Committee, my main concern was timing, and the letter says that the Treasury intends to consult on the draft regulations as soon as possible after the Bill receives Royal Assent. We will keep an eye out for them and hope that it will not be too late after Royal Assent comes through.
On implementation, the letter makes it clear that, understandably, there needs to be time for IT changes and preparing the scheme guidance. It suggests that 18 months would give adequate time for stakeholders to prepare after regulations have been laid. I have no reason to question that timing but, given that the letter goes on to suggest that the SDRP may not actually be in use until the end of 2024, it seems to me that we are talking about a delay of perhaps three and a half years once work has started. I wonder whether the Government might want to look at that timetable again. We need to get this right, clearly, and time must be given for that, but Ministers are aware that the SDMP is complementary to the debt relief scheme, which we were just talking about in relation to Northern Ireland, which is due to operate on a much tighter timetable—to be introduced, I think the Minister said, in early May. To be honest, I do not think I would be alone if I said that the Minister’s hope, as expressed in his letter, that this timetable reassures noble Lords that the Government’s work will proceed at pace is not altogether convincing. Perhaps the Minister will respond at the end of the debate.
The letter also contains some very helpful reassurance on other policy matters. Debtors are to be protected from most creditor enforcement during an SDRP, including enforcement by bailiffs. That is a great relief to hear. We will come back to that in a later amendment. It might be helpful if the Government could clarify what creditor enforcement would not be protected under an SDRP. That would be useful to have on record. The letter confirms that the widest range of personal and business debt should be eligible for inclusion in an SDRP. It is good to have that confirmation and to know that, in particular, that includes local government as well as Crown debts. Again, it is useful to have that clarification on the record.
Only those with appropriate authorisations from the FCA will be able to offer SDRPs, unless they are a local authority that offers money advice and is therefore exempt from FCA authorisation. Again, that clarification is helpful and welcome. Debt advice providers will not be able to charge a fee to debtors for accessing an SDRP. Again, that clarification is extremely welcome.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the next speaker is the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. The speaker after her, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, has withdrawn, so the speaker after the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, will be the noble Lord, Lord Davies.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and I offer my thanks for his support for the concept of Amendment 12, to which I shall speak. It appears in my name and is kindly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans.
Amendment 12 seeks to secure a discounting of debt for people entering proposed statutory debt repayment plans—something that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, noted has already occurred in Scotland. I set out in Committee that that is a large group of people with incomes above those eligible for debt relief orders, but with assets and income generally below those covered by voluntary agreements on bankruptcy. All those other agreements operate in ways that can result in debt being cleared in a relatively short period, much shorter than those to be covered by statutory debt repayment plans. I will not repeat all that detail again.
However, this amendment represents a development of an amendment presented in Committee to secure a fair debt write-down in respect of debts sold on the secondary market. For that initial amendment and this amended one, I pay tribute to the large amount of work done by the Centre for Responsible Credit, from which noble Lords will have received a briefing. While a strong argument exists to support this proposal, entirely legitimate concerns were raised in the debate that the impact of such a move on the operation of the secondary market would need to be properly considered. The noble Lord, Lord True, also raised a concern about the need for equitable treatment of debtors in the scheme. Taking those concerns on board, this new amendment, rather than being prescriptive, is permissive in nature and seeks to ensure that discounts on debt are secured, where appropriate, with the full agreement of creditors.
Amendment 12 recognises that many creditors listed on debt repayment plans, regardless of whether the debt originated with them or they bought it on the secondary market, will often prefer to receive a lump sum as full and final payment as opposed to low levels of instalments spread out over many years. As a result, many creditors already offer a significant discount on the total level of debt if a lump-sum settlement can be made. While the StepChange debt charity has a dedicated team to provide advice to debtors concerning possible full and final settlements, not all debt management plan providers do so. There arises a potential conflict of interest, as SDRP providers are likely to be reimbursed on a percentage basis of the total debt collected. Securing discounts for big debtors would reduce their revenues.
This amendment would therefore ensure that the Government are provided with a power to instruct SDRP providers, where appropriate, to enter into debt settlement negotiations on behalf of debtors entering the scheme. Hopefully this is not needed, but it is important that such a power exists.
In addition, it ought to be possible for SDRP providers to go further. With appropriate funding and regulation, business models could be encouraged that would allow SDRP providers to themselves buy out, and therefore discount, debts registered on their plans. For example, in recent months we have seen instances of debt of £10,000 being discounted by as much as 40% in return for full and final settlement. Enabling such debts to be bought out and subsequently collected by SDRP providers would mean the debtor would have to repay only £6,900, even after taking into account a 15% fee for the provider. It should be possible to achieve a result that is beneficial to creditor and debtor alike. I stress that building this negotiated settlement approach into the SDRP is likely to be welcomed by creditors, who in many cases are already prepared to discount heavily for lump sums in full and final settlement.
It is not my intention to push this amendment to a vote at this stage, but I seek a commitment from the Minister to continue to explore and work on this issue. I hope he can commit to a meeting between the department and interested noble Lords to see how we can take this forward, possibly in regulation.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 11 and 12. I do not intend to delay us particularly long at this time of night, but I want to take the opportunity to pursue an issue.
My involvement in the Financial Services Bill has been a learning experience for me, as a new Member, in the way in which we are able to progress issues through the course of a Bill and the opportunities arising at different stages to make points and develop what it is possible to achieve, as opposed to what we would like in a perfect world. I have made plain my support for a more fundamental debt jubilee, but that is clearly a discussion—a fight—for another day. The amendments before us today clearly provide a useful step forward—a small step, but one that is still worth while.
I want to say a word on behalf of the debtors, those people who have taken on debts for all sorts of reasons—some good, some bad. You cannot just look at the debtors in this situation and say, “That is where the problem arose.” Quite clearly, bad debts are part of the business plan of people who lend money. We have learnt to an extent during these debates that there are issues in how you develop a plan so that, when debts are discounted, it is not just commercial organisations that benefit and there is also the opportunity for those who have unwisely or mistakenly taken on debts to gain some advantage from the discounting of debts. That is really what we are trying to work towards here.
I support these amendments and hope the Government will be able to take on board the issues raised. The underlying issue—this is the point I have pursued before—is that there is a public interest in dealing with debt and relieving people of the debts they have taken on; it does not help just the individuals concerned. Lowering the level of debt and removing onerous debts help us all generally, and particularly at the moment when we are looking for an economic revival. I hope the Government take on board the ideas behind these amendments and work towards a scheme that helps not just the debtors but all of us.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
The next speaker after the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, will be the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak to this group of amendments, and I declare my interests as set out in the register. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on the way in which he introduced this group, and on all the work that he has done in this area, not least with StepChange. More than a step change, he has done more than many marathons around this subject. Not just your Lordships’ House, but the nation, is in his debt for the work he has done on debt.
I also thank the Minister for his engagement throughout the Bill. I know that he is completely committed to this area, and I congratulate him on the engagement and the time he has spent with me and other noble Lords. It is safe to say that this is an issue that will run longer than this Bill. As with so many other issues, Covid puts a new lens on debt, and enables more people to understand that it is not necessarily just for others. Potentially, with a slight twist of circumstance, we are but a heartbeat, or a breath, away from being in tough financial straits. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and I look forward to hearing the response from the Minister.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Holmes, who I am delighted to follow, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for giving us the opportunity, with what I consider to be probing amendments, to explore in more detail how the statutory debt management plans will work. I must say to my noble friend the Minister that I am deeply uneasy, because there is very little detail in the Bill about how these provisions will work.
I am a Scot by birth, and a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates. Noble Lords will recall that I started my legal career as a humble Bar apprentice, working in a rather Dickensian attic along Heriot Row in Edinburgh, looking at debt collection as part of my role.
I am grateful to the Centre for Responsible Credit for its impressive briefing. What concerns me is a lack of urgency on the part of the Government. According to the Financial Conduct Authority, the pandemic has negatively impacted the finances of 20 million people. Problems are, I understand, concentrated among the self-employed, who obviously have been particularly hard hit, especially those who became self-employed in the year before the lockdown restrictions came into effect. Also heavily impacted are those on incomes of less than £15,000 a year, and BAME communities. The FCA estimates that just under one in five adults is overindebted, with 8.5 million potentially needing debt advice. According to the previous National Audit Office methodology, we can, sadly, expect the knock-on impacts of overindebtedness, such as increased mental health problems and unemployment, to cost the taxpayer in the region of £9 billion a year.
I shall ask my noble friend a question about what we could do, rather than playing for time and our not seeing any detail, with no scheme in place beforehand. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said in moving his Amendment 11 so effectively, the scheme will not be in place in England until 2024. The question must be: if there is a tried and tested scheme in Scotland, which is working, could we not therefore adapt that scheme to operate in England in the next two years? That would be a great help, and would go to the heart of how we in the United Kingdom approach the issue of debt.
Amendment 12, too, has much to commend it, and I very much look forward to hearing what my noble friend will say in summing up this little debate.
Baroness Coussins (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and I remind the House of my interest as an ambassador and former president of the Money Advice Trust.
Although Clause 34 may be seen as a relatively small part of the Bill, we have had a great deal of discussion on it during the passage of the Bill—a sign of how important SDRPs are. Throughout the process, I and other noble Lords have been keen to secure clarity over the timetable for introducing SDRPs.
I thank the Minister for his positive and constructive engagement on this issue and for meeting me and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, to discuss the timings for the introduction of SDRPs. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I am also grateful to the Minister for his letter yesterday, which provided further clarity on this timetable.
In Committee, the Government did not accept my amendment to include a specific date by which SDRPs should be implemented. I was pleased nevertheless to hear the Minister confirm that the complex and detailed process to prepare for implementation seemed to be entirely compatible with the end date I was proposing—albeit pretty tightly.
So I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that on the record this evening, by specifying the various stages of the Treasury’s intended timetable for laying the regulations and reassuring the House that SDRPs are genuinely intended to have a commencement date before May 2024. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, on his amendments in Committee and again here on Report. He has clearly found a mechanism for engaging very fruitfully with the Government, and therefore we all have the benefit of a letter that lays out some of the important and significant elements of statutory debt repayment plans; for that, I am grateful.
I join with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in being rather perturbed—I think the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was as well—that the implementation date is 2024. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said that it was towards the end of 2024. I advise the Government not then to use terms such as “at pace”, which they use extensively in the Financial Services Bill—usually to argue that there is no time for a statutory instrument to be approved by Parliament, which takes a matter of weeks.
I am rather troubled and it suggests that the Government might want to think of some kind of stopgap to deal with the very significant number of people who will find themselves with debt problems as we come to the end of furlough. People will find that they have been moved into permanent redundancy and that other jobs are hard to obtain, and a lot of young people coming out of university courses will not find the usual opportunities.
We are going to go through a very rough period where quite a number of people will find themselves loaded down with private debt, not because they have behaved inappropriately in any way but because the way events have hit them. They will need some additional support and rescue, rather than just the schemes that are in place. The SDRPs would almost certainly have been ideal for many of them. So I hope the Government will look at the events that are going to force a lot of people into a very difficult position.
Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, would do what I think Amendment 55 in Committee was intended to do. This time I think it would do it. It is designed to enhance opportunities for people who have signed up to SDRPs to pay off their debts early at a discount. It will need some structure and engagement from social enterprise groups and perhaps even the Government providing some measure of support, because seed funding will be needed to get a scheme such as this off the ground. I hope that the Government will think some of that through. It seems the kind of scheme that would enable people to get back into the financial mainstream more quickly, which is surely something we want to achieve. Again, the need for that will be more acute because of the extraordinary number of people who will find themselves in debt as a consequence of Covid. I do not think it actually requires legislation, so I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, will choose not to move it.
These two amendments highlight the need for some serious thinking on how the Government can best support people who will come out of Covid and find themselves in fairly difficult circumstances. When we work with people who have debt problems, a fundamental issue usually has to be dealt with that has led them into that corner. Sometimes it is to do with lifestyle choices, but very often it might be mental health issues or family breakdown. The group who will find themselves in problems because of the impact of Covid do not fall into that category. Therefore, with a proper helping hand at the right time, they could quickly and easily be returned to a position where they are no longer financially excluded or in financial difficulties. That is absolutely necessary if we are to see the recovery that we all hope for. I hope the Government will look at these amendments and continue to build on them, rather than consider them concluded because Report has passed.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we welcome the re-tabling of Amendment 11 by my noble friend Lord Stevenson, which provides the Minister with an opportunity to give more detail on the intention behind the Government’s introduction of the statutory debt management scheme. We are grateful to the Minister and his officials for the various meetings that have taken place in recent weeks. We hope that, even once the Bill has passed, there will be opportunities for further cross-party dialogue on issues relating to personal debt, financial resilience and so on.
There was a lively debate on this issue in Grand Committee, and various amendments were tabled by colleagues from across the Committee. Despite the number of amendments, almost all noble Lords were united in saying that the Government must get on with introducing the scheme. Amendment 12 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, co-signed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, deals with some slightly broader issues relating to problem debt. We hope that the Minister can provide a full response to those points, either now or in writing.
Looking at these amendments and the next group on BNPL and financial exclusion, I am struck by just how important it is to adopt a more holistic approach to personal finance, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Stevenson in his previous amendment on the concept of financial well-being. Helping people with debt has to be important. I have trouble understanding how people cope with that situation. It is the role of the state to provide structures to allow people to take on their debt problems in a managed way. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate. I genuinely thank all noble Lords who spoke in Committee and who have spoken today and, indeed, those with whom I have had the privilege of meeting and discussing these matters of engagement. All the discussions have been useful, and the Government have certainly listened to them. I hope that in my letter which I have placed in the Library of the House and my remarks this evening, I will be able to assure noble Lords that that is the position.
What I have found most pleasing is a sense of unanimity, which is rare in this House, that we are on the right track as regards seeking a scheme of this kind. The SDRP is a new solution for those who are in problem debt. It will provide a revised, long-term agreement between the debtor and creditors. Debtors will be protected from most credit enforcement action and from certain interests and charges on debts in the plan. Following the Committee stage and the valuable discussions I have referred to, I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and my noble friend Lord Lucas with further details. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to aspects of that letter. However, the Library of your Lordships’ House is not open to everyone, particularly at this time. Given its importance to today’s debate, I hope that your Lordships will indulge me if I take some time to place on public record some of the key commitments set out in it because they are commitments which have been made on behalf of the Government. I also want to ensure that all noble Lords understand the timings the Government are working to.
I spoke in Committee in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, about the range of support being given by the Government to people at this difficult time, and she is quite right to refer to those difficulties. In the meantime, as we work on the SDRP, the Government are pushing ahead with the implementation of a breathing space scheme that will come into force on 4 May this year. Other voluntary and statutory debt solutions will continue to be available to debtors to consider in the meantime.
I return to the process which has been of interest to many noble Lords. The Treasury is currently drafting regulations for the SDRP and intends to consult on them as soon as possible after the Financial Services Bill receives Royal Assent. As well as preparing the regulations, the Treasury will also need to work with the Insolvency Service and others to implement new IT systems and develop scheme guidance to aid stakeholders in implementing the policy. It is also important, obviously, to give stakeholders adequate time to prepare so that the regime can be implemented properly. Given that, I can confirm that the Government expect the SDRP to be implemented in 2024. In order to achieve that, they will aim to lay the necessary regulations by the end of 2022.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, is disappointed at the specifics of my letter on the timing and, indeed, that has been alluded to by others. However, I will repeat that it is the Government’s clear aim and intent, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, was kind enough to say, to operate on that timetable with the most appropriate dispatch.
As to why the SDRP regulations might not be able to be laid until the end of 2022, the reality is that the Treasury is currently working on their drafting. I have explained that this is a complex undertaking and will require input from stakeholders both inside and outside the Government to finalise before a consultation on regulations can be published. That consultation will in turn need to give a reasonable length of time—we are often criticised for providing insufficient time for consultation—for stakeholders and members of the public to reflect and respond. We must allow sufficient time beyond that to consider the responses properly. Those views, as appropriate, will need to be reflected in the draft regulations before they are laid. The timetable will also need to accommodate the necessary clearances within Government and Parliament for publications and legislation. However, I know that noble Lords on all sides of the House, including on these Benches, wish for the SDRP to be progressed in a timely manner. The Government have certainly understood the strength of feeling among noble Lords on this matter.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, wished also to further understand some of the details of the regime; as he has made clear, that is what his probing Amendment 11 seeks to explore. So I repeat on the public record that the details of the SDRP regime will be set out in affirmative secondary legislation, so Parliament will be able to consider the exact details close to the time. I also reassure noble Lords that Section 7 of the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018, as amended by Clause 34 of the Bill, will contain powers to allow the Government to include such features in the SDRP as suggested in the amendment. However, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I will set out further detail on how the Government expect the regime to function.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank all those who have participated in this short debate. It was unfortunate that, because of timing and other pressures, we have lost the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, and indeed from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, both of whom had interesting points that they wanted to make. Despite that, we have touched just about every issue that needed to be looked at. Indeed, we have gone a bit further. I am very pleased that the debate has taken place, even though we have just passed our closing time.
I will take a few minutes to wind up by touching on a couple of points. Of course, I am deeply embarrassed by the idea that this initiative is all my responsibility and that I should get all the credit for it. That is certainly not the case. This has been a team effort by many groups and bodies, many of which were referred to by the Minister in his remarks. We should give credit to the not-for-profit and charitable bodies that have been working tirelessly over many years to get unmanageable debt sorted out in our society, for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, said. It is a cost to the public good. We did a calculation when I was at StepChange which suggested it was probably costing about £9 billion a year. I was interested that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, also came up with a figure very close to that.
It is important that we have a mature and sensible debate about debt: how it happens, how it arises, and how it gets resolved. The great thing about today, and what I take away from it, is that we are able to do that in your Lordships’ House in a way that reflects the very best of our ability to contribute to these debates, and also with a listening Government who are prepared to take it back and see if there is a way in which legislation and regulation can be adjusted. If we can understand a little bit more about why debt happens and what people want to do about it, I think we will all benefit.
My experience at StepChange was rather unexpected. When I first went there, I thought it would be largely a collection of feckless people who had got themselves into overspending and debt. In fact, the truth was that our median client was probably in their 50s, had led a blameless life and done everything to make sure that their outgoings and income matched and that there was not a debt problem for them. They had done the best for themselves and for their families, and it was always, as someone said in the debate, an unexpected issue: somebody had got ill, somebody had lost their job unexpectedly, or there was some other crisis that occurred that tipped them over into a situation for which—and this was a message that came over time and time again—they really did not have the tools in their own personal skillset to be able to deal with. They did not understand the financial system very well, they could not understand where they could get help from, there was a confusing number of people who were trying to make money out of the problems that they were in, and they struggled.
It was only because of StepChange, Money Advice Trust, Citizens Advice, Christians Against Poverty and others who have done fantastic work over the years that we have got ourselves to a point where we can see a way forward on this. This legislation will help tremendously. There is no doubt about that at all. I am very grateful to the Government for having listened, having thought through the issues, and come forward with sensible plans, even though like others I regret the timescale that we are on. Nevertheless, I am sure we can get it right.
The Minister echoed a lot of the good will and support around the House that I have been reaching out to. But if he thinks this is the end of the line, he has another thing coming. I have a long list of things that I would still like to get done, things that have got away so far but which I shall try to ensure I do before I stop. If we get people off unmanageable debt and back into society, they often have terrible problems getting a credit rating. We must attack that. Even getting a credit card after you have been through a debt process is very difficult. A whole series of issues could come under the process that we talked about on an earlier amendment regarding financial well-being. We could look at that, with advantage, to build on where we are today.
If we can, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, have a sensible discussion about who is affected, why it happens and how we can do best by them, we will all benefit. With that, I again thank noble Lords for their contributions and beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the Minister's amendment at page 40, line 14.